We've heard six and a half years of dump Bush. What's a couple days of dump Maliki. Not going to happen. Boy I've heard that before. steve was right the first time this came up. Just because your candidate for president says it doesn't give it any more weight. Unless, everything she says is gold. Does she walk on water. She hasn't apologized for her vote for the war, has she?
Her campaign is so reminiscent of what other campaign....Oh yeah, the Bush campaign's of 2000 and 2004.
Posted by peter at August 22, 2007 08:31 PMSince when have retarded American politicians been Iragi voter. The job of any prime minister in a parliamentary democracy is to satisfy his and his supporting MPs' constituents. Do you think those constiuents care about sharing power, modifying the de-Baathification laws, passing an oil law, scheduling provincial elections, and amending their constitution. No, if he did any of those things he would most likely end up hanging from a lamp post in the not too distant future.
Surely in a true parliamentary democracy it is up to the parliament to decide who the prime ministar is not up any idiots occupying that country. So, Mr. Dinelli, are you suggesting that the American occupying forces organize a coup against Prime Minister Maliki because the Iraqi parliament is unlikely to replace him? Who would they put in his place? Allawi? Some Sunni general?
"...Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said the Defense Department expected defense contractors to produce 3,900 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles this year. But only 1,500 would make it to the war zone -- down from the Pentagon's previous shipment target of 2,500 to 3,000...."
b-b-but Bush (and pants pissing peter) support the troops!?!?!?!
I can't help but feel the 'dump Maliki' movement will just further our stay in Iraq. We're looking for a savior and there isn't one, IMHO.
If Maliki is dumped, then we'll have to "stay the course" to "give the new guy (and it will be a man) a chance". Voila--we're in the presidential primary season, "can't do anything now" and before you know it Mr. 20+% is supposed to step down and let the cards fall on someone else's watch.
Nope, I prefer the "devil" we know (Maliki (and I don't have anything in particular against him, I'm simply following the form of the cliche)) to an unobtained (and unobtainable) "Iraqi George Washington".
Remember, leaving equals losing, so W's goal is not to pull out on his watch.
Posted by bartcopfan at August 23, 2007 08:55 AMShe hasn't apologized for her vote for the war, has she?
She's not going to give you the pleasure, ppp (good'n, Gay Vet).
She has said she regretted her vote; she has said knowing what she knows now, she wouldn't vote that way again; she has said she regretted trusting Mr. 20+% with the authority to go to war.
But if she said the words you claim to want to hear, Faux Nooz, Rush, et al would replay that tape until we begged to hear the Dean Scream instead.
She has repudiated her vote in every way but the M-word. That's good enough for me (and I'm for Edwards at this point).
Posted by bartcopfan at August 23, 2007 09:04 AMI'll agree with you on "leaving equals losing" and "If Maliki is dumped, then we'll have to "stay the course" to "give the new guy (and it will be a man) a chance"." President Guiliani will be able to handle it.
Posted by peter at August 23, 2007 03:00 PMHillary gets a big fat F in my book for her Iraq positons.
Not bothering to read the NIE report before sending people to kill and be killed, she then whined about being misled.
Early on, she also said if she knew then what she knows now, she would vote the same way, just like John Kerry said in "04.
After the Iraqi elections, all factions of the Iraqi population participated in the new gov't. At our finger-snapping, quick step pace, they adopted a Constitution that met OUR standards, not theirs, and then they proposed a peace plan that included an agreement with the Sunnis to lay down their arms, if we withdrew within two years.
Why did we reject their peace plan???? Where was Hillary on that? There have been many proposed peace plans that we continue to reject. Why?
Various factions of the Iraqi people are boycotting the gov't now because Maliki will not set a date certain for our troops to withdraw. And Hillary is blaming Maliki for being non-functional??? The new gov't did everything we asked, except pass that egregious, exploitative oil law.
Where is Hillary on the various peace plans proposed by the Iraqi gov't???? I want to know why we don't accept their proposals for peace.
If non-functionality is the criteria for heads of state to step down, let's hear Hillary call for Dopey and Darth to step down. Clean your own house first, girl.
Kucinich is the only one with a workable plan.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/HR1234