Are Nouri al-Maliki's days as Iraqi PM seriously numbered?

[skip fox]

It seems al-Maliki is on the way out.


The fact that a "powerhouse Republican lobbying firm with close ties to the White House has begun a public campaign to undermine the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki" as reported by CNN. Du link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2965070

Now Alklawi's bloc quits the government:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2965233

And of course there was a lot of talk that Bush was only showing him luke-warm support early in the week.

And about two days ago on Chris Matthews, I think, I heard someone say that Bush mihght want him out because he could try to use the situation to ask time for the new leader to effect political control. They would have another reason to prolong the war. (Although I think that would backfire, the change of PM's being too much evidence of politial chaos to ask our soldiers to endure any more. . . . But this might make Bush to want this to come soon . . . within days?)

[spanone]

1. isn't it wonderful that we use a Republican lobbying firm to influence sovereign nations elections

get these fuckers out of office ASAP

[MADem]

2. Isn't Tariq Aziz on ice somewhere in the US? I always thought that BushCo would

flip HIM and use him. I'm surprised they didn't. He had great TV presence, came across as reasonable, even when Saddam was shaking a fist, waving a sword, or shooting off a gun, and he was a stylin' dresser with a good haircut. He was accepted abroad, and liked at home. Further, the guy is a Catholic (Chaldean--his actual name is the arabic version of Michael) so he's neither Shi'a nor Sunni--a perfect 'unity' leader.

Bet if they had that to do all over again, that would have been the plan....if I were determined to toss that old government, that's how I'd have played it.

[EVDebs]

3. Last month Malaki said "US troops can leave whenever they want'

That sealed his fate, a la Diem in Nov 1963, and JFK later in the month. Expect Malaki to disappear from the scene and corrupt puppets like Chalabi for example to pop up in his place. Bush is correct re the Vietnam analogy. The US public is fed up with Iraqi boys not standing up to do what, as JFK said, defend THEIR country,

"Why did I suspect that this document might be very important? First, there is the date: Robert McNamara has written that President Kennedy, at a National Security Council meeting on October 2, 1963, the day after this conversation apparently occurred, decided to pull U.S. forces out of Vietnam by the end of 1965 and to start the process by withdrawing a thousand troops before the end of 1963. (Several leading Kennedy administration officials have endorsed McNamara’s interpretation, but it remains a very contentious question, disputed, for example, by Dean Rusk, JFK’s Secretary of State. Historians are divided as well.)"

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1999/5/1999_5_67.shtml

Bush's duplicity is evident in the contradiction of his intended withdrawal (As Iraqis stand up...) and the permanent bases

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2965393&mesg_id=2965419

[skip fox]

4. good. More solid evidence and intelligent historical connections.

How long do you think he has?

[EVDebs]

5. Well, the GOPers see the handwriting on the wall, so in order to pressure R's in Congress

July 12, 2007
Defying Bush, House Passes New Deadline for Withdrawal From Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/07/12/cq_3069.html

and July 18, 2007 (I deliberately picked Fox Snooze's article btw)
After All-Night Debate, Senate Rejects Measure to Bring Troops Home From Iraq
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289766,00.html

...so, sometime before the funding deadline at the federal level which is Oct. 1st

http://www.ams.org/government/budget-timeline.html

Also, I see the "Surge" as merely a baldfaced attempt to go after Iran by using a staged Iraq buildup of troops. This is born out by recent comments from Robert Baer and Ray McGovern, not to mention the Fox/Cheney sound machine, that Iran is next.

With Hillary chiming in, too, on Malaki, Bush's statements that 'he's a good man' really mean he wears a bull's eye on his back.

See this DU post re CIA stepping up Iran actions prior to that funding deadline,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1655549

The protesters should be in the streets right now but we're sooooo worn out and worked over that I think only foreign protests taking place overseas can put the media on notice that we know something's up

[JCMach1]

6. Yes, their goal is to bring in a Sunni Strongman (Saddam II)

Haven't you guys heard the recent interviews with generals...?

Oh yeah, is it any coincidence this is what the Saudis want?

[Monk06]

7. If Chavez visited Maliki, for sure his days are numbered. Seems everyone Hugo

visits ends up on a Bomb/Coup list.

The guy's a jinx I tell ya.

[Javaman]

8. Here comes the bus. nt

[skip fox]

9. Tonight's Special Report withg Brit Hume round table reaffirmed

my belief that al-Maliki is going. "Krauthummer" even said WE should have undermined his goverment much earlier and the said, "I wouln't have him shot, but . . ."

Jesus. Look at the view point behind this. That's how th administration thinks.