President Bush declared today his continued support for Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, saying he is “the right guy for Iraq.” Bush added: “You can’t lead unless you’ve got courage. He’s got courage and he’s shown courage over the last six months.” But a classified memo from national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley expressed doubts about whether Maliki has the capacity to control the sectarian violence in Iraq. It concluded: “The reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into actions.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
35 Comments
Refresh my memory. Was Maliki elected? (That name sounds more Hawaiian than Middle Eastern.)
The New York Times. News source of choice for the modern terrorist.
Yes. It is absolutely necessary to keep the American public ignorant of reality to fully protect them from evil terrorists.
I have the next talking point ready, when it is required…
Isn’t he Iraq’s Bush?
“Isn’t he Iraq’s Bush?”
No, he speaks English better than Bush.
Being the President of Iraq is like being the governor of Texas. Sure you may be elected but you don’t have any power over the people.
The biggest problem al-Maliki has is he received the endorsement of Bush. Bush has a 1% approval rating in Iraq and his previous endorsements Brownie and Rumsfeld didn’t turn out too well at all. So expect al-Maliki to be a one timer.
Bush added: “You can’t lead unless you’ve got courage. He’s got courage and he’s shown courage over the last six months.”
Wonder, in this case, if ‘courage’ goes by the name of al-Sadr?
Hello in there Steven? I hope that you know this and are just being contrary, but politicians, when they are conducting diplomacy, don’t always say what they really mean. Yup.
Thus, when a news rag like the NYT discloses the contents of a classified memo (classified for a reason) it can really throw a wrench into the works by giving our enemies information they were not intended to have.
The New York Times. Treason is no big thing.
Out, have you considered the possibility that the memo was deliberately “leaked” by the Administration to temper expectations about the meeting with al-Maliki?
Treason? You mean like outing a CIA operative for political purposes?
And don’t try that “she wasn’t covert” nonsense – if the CIA had her classified as covert – she was covert.
Poppy Bush said that outing a CIA operative is treason – I wonder if that applies to his kids.
Did anyone notice that “Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki” initials are Nam?
Whoa George!! Now I’m starting to get the picture! Holy Tet!
“Those who don’t learn from the past……..”
Outlander,
You mis-read my post. I am all for keeping people ignorant. [/sarcasm]
I can link to Steven Aftergood if necessary, but the Bush administration has classified more things secret than any prior administration. They do so for a number of reasons – not least of which is their effort to hide their embarrassing record of utter failure on a number of fronts…
Shilling for the Bush administration has to be a very thankless job these days.
Unfortunately, there is no downside for those in government to make any and everything secret. Secrecy is also sought because those in government are lazy. It is easier to make something secret than going to the trouble of thinking about whether secrecy was needed. This being an especially lazy administration (intellectually, at least) is likely another reason for their pervasive secrecy.
The downside of secrecy is that it shields the government from being monitored by its citizens. IMHO, the more sunshine in government the better. Openness is not always a risk for terrorist attacks. The benefits of openness are worth the small risk here, I believe.
Steven: That’s all good information I’m sure, but it has nothing to do with what we were talking about. I’m also glad that you know why the Bush administration does what they do. I’m sure they would like to know that themselves at times.
Oh great Steven, you posted in between. I was referring to your 1:11 pm post.
Typical Repulbican bush. Says one thing means another.
“…but it has nothing to do with what we were talking about.”
Suffice it to say, I do not see how you can think the things you claim to think.
On the way here, I guess I missed where you posted your license of being the arbiter of relevance.
Also, I think Vaughn’s hypothesis about the memo being intentionally leaked is an espeically insightful speculation. For the Bush administration, all leaking is bad, except the leaking they purposefully do.
This thread raises two specific issues.
1) Should the national security advisor be able to give the president their honest, unfettered opinion? The obvious answer to that is — of course.
2) If the NY Times comes across a classified memo that contains honest and unfettered opinions of adminstration officials should they not publish it? For me this answer would depend upon how they got said memo and the contents of it as well. The Times have editors who struggle with this question every day. I assume these editors are doing what they are supposed to do. The fact that right-wingers are doubting the foregoing is not a huge surprise.
Chuckle…the Times editors don’t struggle too hard with it Steven. Lets see, in the recent past they have;
1. Leaked a plan the government had to freeze the assets of Islamic charities suspected of funding terrorists, allowing them to move the funds.2. Leaked the secret NSA terrorist phone surveillance program.3. Revealed the government program monitoring the banking transactions of suspected terrorists.
So this little leak by the NYT is no surprise, but considering their anti-American bias it is very doubtful the Bush administration would use them as the conduit.
The New York Times. A terrorist’s best friend.
Outlander, all three of those were public knowledge. Bush even bragged about the financial sneaking his admin was doing.
The NSA was spying on American citizens, one of which was just awarded $2 million for being falsely accused as a terrorist. Therefore outlander says Americans are terrorists and supporting Americans is anti-American.
Can someone explain to me conservative logic because it just doesn’t make sense.
I’ll spend a month in jail for a two million dollar settlement…
…heck you can even call me Osama for that price.
Doug,
You forgot the classic implied here today: Americans must be stripped of their constitutional rights in order to protect said Americans from terrorists.
Sorry, but I fear my protectors more than I fear terrorists.
Newt Gingrich said we had to get rid of our freedom of speech rights in order to protect us against the terrorists who hate us because of our freedoms.
Can someone explain to me why conservatives aren’t kept in the loony bin?
That’s easy Doug.
They are currently running the asylum!
I have this image.
Every time Outlander posts about bush, the war, etc. my mind harkens back to images of the Koolade man. You know, the big red lumbering smiley faced pitcher of koolade that would crash through a brick wall or an outfield fence screaming “Oh YEAHHHHHH!? And then he’d bring everyone koolade.
This image makes me laugh when Outlander calls me anti- American.
Good one JR. BTW, I found out the name of that cartoon character that you remind me of: Henery Hawk.
You take after Republicans like ol’ Henery takes after chickens.
It is rather amusing watching the BushBots now that their Party has taken a bath in the last election and all the lies about Iraq are coming out continue to shill for their boy. After all, even Colin Powell has now said that Iraq is in civil war.
Meanwhile, Iran and Syria stand ti gain tremendously as they sign agreements with Iraq and prepare to step in and pick up the pieces.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Since Iran for sure, and probably Syria is involved in the encouragement and supplying of the insurgency, it’s not like they are just standing around waiting to pick up the pieces.
Does anyone understand why people are worried about terminology like “civil war”. What does it matter? It is a bunch of savages killing their country men, women and children. These are hard, violent men. I fully understand the “cut and run” emotion. I wish we weren’t in Iraq. But how much worse would it be for the innocents if we leave with our tail between our legs? And what a disaster it would be to abandon Iraq to Iran and their wacko leader.
Good accusation outlander – just like WMDs and alQuada-Saddam. But no proof to back it up. Eyewitness reports are that the death squads are ARI troops trained and armed by the US. Maliki’s government is falling apart; he cannot even control his own troops.
As for your claim of disaster if we leave Iraqis are suffering disaster under their current wacko leaders. And OUR wacko leader is the man behind it all.
As for th term ‘civil war’ anyone who knows anything is using that term now. Ask Colin Powell.
Western Afghanistan (Herat) has come under Iranian control; that seems to be a hell of a lot better than the chaos that rules the rest of Afghanistan.
I am not saying Iranian control will be good; what I am saying is that things could even be worse. Just like I never said that US ally Saddam was not bad; only that things in Iraq could be made worse. I have been proved right.
Too simple words Out.
Blame bush.
Remember his SPRINT to war? Remember Colin Powell and the “Pottery Barn” rule?
Even outlander, once in a while, has a moment of truth. Hard to beileve I know.
I just finished _State of Denial_. In the latter part of that book Woodward presents that our intelligence people believe that superior IEDs which utilize some sort of “shaped design” that allows those devices to penetrate armored vehicles – comes from the technical expertise of Iran. If Iran is providing these weapons to the insurgency with the intent of killing our troops, that amounts to an act of war.
I know others have said it, but I have never believed that Bush would declare war on Iran. It may happen.
And, boy, won’t that make for an improvement in the world.
I again pose a question I have used before as an analogy. Suppose you faced serious surgery and it was a result of continued incompetance and malpractice by your doctor. Your doctor has also consistently lied to you about what is going on. Would you trust that same doctor to perform the surgery?
Blowhard O’Liely keeps saying that the media, by calling this a civil war, want America to lose the war in Iraq. Next time he asks someone or says that, I want someone to ask him how many Americans should die for this war.
Steven,Shaped charges, such as anti-tank rounds, have been around since WWII at least, maybe earlier. We had them when I was in the artillery a long time ago.
There probably have been improvements over the years, though.
And don’t forgte the decision that was made to NOT protect the ammo dumps from looting.