How’s that for timeliness?
This morning all the major media outlets were talking up Bush’s “distancing” himself from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, while averring that he didn’t go as far as Senator Carl Levin, who openly called for the Iraqi sock-puppet’s replacement. Except the sock puppet is switching to another hand.
No sooner had U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, said the Maliki government’s performance was “extremely disappointing,” then Bush, pointedly refusing to endorse the Iraqi Prime Minister, expressed “a certain level of frustration with the leadership.” Â
Maliki, having just returned from a trip to Tehran, where he held hands with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is now in Syria, where he was quoted as saying:
“The Iraqi government was elected by the Iraqi people. Maybe this person who made a statement yesterday is upset by the nature of our visit to Syria. These statements do not concern us a lot. We will find many around the world who will support us in our endeavour.”
This is bound to give Maliki added street cred, and, ironically, help dispel his image as a weak leader. Or could that have been the idea all along?
I doubt it. Such an explanation is too clever by a bit more than half — after all, we’re talking about the US government here — and yet the end result is that this will strengthen Maliki’s beleaguered government, and perhaps even prevent it from losing its parliamentary majority.
As I said in my Monday column, it’s all about what Seymour Hersh calls “the redirection.” The new enemy is Iran, and that means the Shi’ite government we installed in power is now being treated as an Iranian proxy — or, at least, an ally of Tehran. Levin’s call for Maliki’s ouster, apparently on behalf of the Allawi lobby in Washington, is congruent with Hillary Clinton’s recent statement endorsing the alliance with Sunni insurgents in Anbar and Diyala provinces, and averring that “We have to be preparing to fight the new war.”
Ah yes, the new war. That’s what the people voted for in the last congressional elections — or is my memory playing tricks on me?
At any rate, I’ve blogged on this topic over at Taki’s Top Drawer, where an energetic discussion is taking place in the comments. Go on over there and join in the conversation.
So much for the purple ink…
“Constitutional Convention.”
An Article V Convention?
Even Ron Paul doesn’t go there :p
But you’re right… The useful idiocy of the frothing left and their manipulation by the Establishment used to be kind of cute, talking about impeachment and how Pelosi and the gang are going to turn things around and whatnot. Mr. Smith was heading to Washington boy howdy! Who would have ever thought that all those “open-minded” liberals would really buy into the rhetoric and let themselves be duped in much the same way the right was (say one thing do another)?
Now it is just sad.
First it was:
Useful Idiot on some blog site 12 months ago: Neocons are evil! Bush is Evil! Republicans are Evil! Go Dems 06! They can do it! No more War! No more corruption! No more scandals! Go Pelosi!
Someone else: Pelosi is no dove, and a Democratic majority will mean nothing but business as usual.
Useful Idiot on some blog site 12 months ago: HMM HMM HMM HMM I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!! BUSH IS EVIL!!! REPUGNICANS ARE EVIL!!!
Fast Forward to Pelosi and the gang selling out the party to do a favor for the lobby, neocon-come-lately Lieberman showing his true colors, Nukes-on-the-Table Clinton claiming that seriously serious candidates seriously discuss irradiating millions with nuclear weapons, and other Establishment Buffoonery…
Then it became:
Useful Idiot on some blog site 3 months ago: Neocons are evil! Bush is Evil! Republicans are Evil! Go Dems 08! No more War! No more Corruption! Impeach Bush!
Someone else: The Dems sold out to the war party months ago and Pelosi has taken impeachment, as well as congressional approval before striking Iran, off of the table. Thank AIPAC, among others.
Useful Idiot on some blog site 3 months ago: HMM HMM HMM HMM I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!! BUSH IS EVIL!!! REPUGNICANS ARE EVIL!!! THEY AREN’T PROCHOICE!!!1!! HMM HMM HMM HMM I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!! I
Today:
Useful idiot on some blog site today: ZOMFG WE MAY HAVE BEEN LIED TO BY THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP!!!! WHO IS AIPAC!!??! WHY DIDN’T ANYONE SEE THIS COMING??!?!? HOW DID THIS HAPPEN!?!?? All hope is lost.
Of course, I imagine that more of these conversations will show up should Hillary win in 08 and the rest of America starts catching up. Maybe…
I guess it is easy to be shocked when you spend your entire life wearing blinders you fashioned yourself and refuse to take them off.
Well, when you’re as poorly advised as they are about what it means to be human, I suppose that there are insuperable obstacles to knowing how to defend humanity. It seems to me not coincidental that meaningful opposition to the war was voiced as forcefully as it was early on by Pope John Paul II and not by the Democrats and that these early initiatives were echoed in the Vatican response to Lebanon as well.
There will be no answer out of Washington because Washington is not capable of an answer. But to cling a forlorn hope as these people have suggests all the force of an addiction. God save us from such allies.
John Lowell
Cuz we are Al-Maliki
All the homies say HO! and the girlies gonna scream
Cuz we are Al-Maliki
All the homies say HO! and the girlies gonna scream
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, #1 in the hood, G’
What Mr. Raimondo is not mentioning here is how Russians are viewing the American plan to attack Iran. Russia would be the big winner, since both the U.S. & Iran are hostile to Russia’s hegemonic interests in the Caspian Sea & the Central Asia. Therefore, a US-Iran war is very beneficial to Russia as both of its historic enemies will destroy each other. Texas-based Stratfor Intel (aka The Shadow CIA) has more on this: http://www.en.baztab.com/content/?cid=4328
I’m sorry, where do you get the idea that Russia and Iran are hostile to each other? Russia is a key ally of Iran, and the two nations have a large amount of co-operation between them. [1]
You are right though: an American attack on Iran will cause the Iranian regime to cuddle up even further to Moscow, which will increase Russian influence in the Gulf region, and perhaps even involve Russian troops in conflict with Americans (perhaps unlikely, but one never knows). Were that to happen, the neo-con dream of taking on the Russkies “mano a mano” would finally be on, God help us all.
[1]http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkksEOc5GQwABDnFXNyoA?p=russia%2Biran%2Bcooperation&y=Search&fr=yfp-t-501
But to cling a forlorn hope as these people have suggests all the force of an addiction.
You owe addiction, and most addicts, an apology.
Mooser,
“You owe addiction, and most addicts, an apology.”
LOL :-)
John Lowell
Just found your blog. I’ll definitely be reading it regularly.
Personally, I am VERY happy to hear any news of Iraqi leaders stepping up to the plate and serving it up to arrogant US officials. What I wonder, though, is since we are all about fostering democracy in Iraq (okay, we’ve HAD our elections) and having the Iraqis ‘stand up while we stand down’ (okay, so our efforts at training already trained soldiers has failed)- what happens when, say, the Iraqis get fed up and formally ally with either Iran and/or Russia and/or any number of states we consider to be ‘not friends’ if not yet enemies? Say Maliki releases a statement next week demanding the immediate withdrawal of all US forces in Iraq- since he is ‘the man’ will the US comply with his order? Or do we prove the lie about our wanting Iraqi sovereignty?
All in all, if I were in Maliki’s shoes I’d be taking a very close look at my prospects in strengthening ties with Tehran and/or Moscow- a VERY close look, and VERY publicly.
You mean like this little gem I found?
“There’s no such thing as a socially beneficial conservative.The entire conservative project is dedicated to injustice and preserving the rights and privileges of the rich at the expense of everyone else. Fred Thompson’s no different.
The only truly socially beneficial conservative I know of was Lord Shaftesbury in England,a member of the House of Lords who basically dedicated his life to getting Britain’s working class children out of the coal mines and factories and into school. He died relatively young, worn out with battling the inhumanity of his fellow ‘lords’ who saw him as a dangerous radical because he didn’t like six year old children being mangled in factory machinery. At some point he must have had help to get the laws banning child labour through, but very little of it came from the right. Every life-altering bit of social progress comes from the centre or the left with the right using every means (including murder and mass murder, i.e. war) to stop progress. Of course there have been honourable exceptions but I’m willing to bet Fred Thompson isn’t one of them. George W. Bush is proving my point at the moment by doing everything he can to prevent a plan to give America’s children health insurance. I haven’t heard Fred Thompson making any noises about it. He’s no Lord Shaftesbury.Conservatives are the eternal embodiment of the saying that the more things change the more they stay the same. In terms of their world view they should all be wearing powdered wigs and leaping about in a minuet at Versailles but they all try to wear modernity and decency like a badge of honour, spouting about ‘reform’ when all they really want to do is go back to the 18th century and elitism, exploitation of the working class and senseless wars. The idea that the Bush administration is an aberration is false: it typifies rightwing thought, albeit in an extreme form.”