Bush to Maliki: Don't pay any attention to the Nov 7 coup stories
Azzaman reports this morning from Washington (Saturday October 28) that US officials say the option of an emergency Iraqi "salvation government" is on the table for discussions in the Bush administration, adding the following details: The anonymous Bush administration sources say Prime Minister Maliki "could" be himself head of the new government, "however" it could be composed of between nine and eleven individuals, who could be Iraqi military people who enjoy the confidence of the people. And "observers" say the idea of a salvation government is based on the idea of a suspension of Parliament, and a freezing of the constitution, for a period of at least two years, which would be followed by new elections under the supervision of the UN. Purposes of the hypothetical government would naturally include provision of basic services, security, and so on.
The Washington observers added there could be surprises in the Iraqi situation, not least because the US congressional elections are upon us. They said: "Anything could happen that might improve the situation by way of reflecting positively on the US administration of Iraq, which is under heavy criticism from the Democratic Party, which is looking forward to a better position in the coming Congress". And the writer adds that the Democratic criticism is especially strong given the spike in US casualties this month.
Maliki, for his part, dismisses this coup talk as election-time posturing, and says the Iraqi security situation would be much improved if it were not tied to the US-administration's apron strings. The journalist quotes Maliki: "If there is a single party responsible for the shaky security situation, it is the occupation".
The above is the top Azzaman story this morning, spread across the top of the front page.
LATER that day, Maliki phoned Bush just to talk, and they arranged a confidence-building teleconference session, after which press secretary Show said (according to Wapo.com):
The Washington observers added there could be surprises in the Iraqi situation, not least because the US congressional elections are upon us. They said: "Anything could happen that might improve the situation by way of reflecting positively on the US administration of Iraq, which is under heavy criticism from the Democratic Party, which is looking forward to a better position in the coming Congress". And the writer adds that the Democratic criticism is especially strong given the spike in US casualties this month.
Maliki, for his part, dismisses this coup talk as election-time posturing, and says the Iraqi security situation would be much improved if it were not tied to the US-administration's apron strings. The journalist quotes Maliki: "If there is a single party responsible for the shaky security situation, it is the occupation".
The above is the top Azzaman story this morning, spread across the top of the front page.
LATER that day, Maliki phoned Bush just to talk, and they arranged a confidence-building teleconference session, after which press secretary Show said (according to Wapo.com):
Snow said that Bush assured Maliki of continuing U.S. support despite midterm election criticism of the war. "Both leaders understand the political pressures going on. But the president told him: Don't worry about politics in the United States because we are with you, and we are going to be with you," Snow said.
posted by badger at 6:28 AM
3 Comments:
Oh my god! "emergency Iraqi SALVATION government"? This phrase inspires in me the most awful combination of anger, outrage, and deep fear. "Iraqi Salvation government"? Salvation for whom exactly? Certainly not for Iraqis. Emergency? What emergency, and whose emergency? Not Iraqis' emergency, so the emergency and the salvation must be that of George Bush, his administration, and the Republicans regarding the upcoming election.
Certainly nothing the US ever has done or ever will do in Iraq can lead to anything that looks like salvation for Iraq or Iraqis. If there ever has been a chance for the US to do anything positive in or for Iraq - and I do not believe there ever has - that time is long, long past. It is just simply too late.
Some comments:
"the option of an emergency Iraqi "salvation government" is on the table"
Yet another so-called "Iraqi" puppet "government" designed to serve the interest of the US and imposed by the US for its own benefit. Wonderful! Just what we need in Iraq.
"Prime Minister Maliki "could" be himself head of the new government"
This can only mean that they see Maliki as potentially compliant with the US then.
"it could be composed of between nine and eleven individuals, who could be Iraqi military people who enjoy the confidence of the people."
Enjoy the confidence of the people? What utter, utter rubbish on every level and from every aspect! They are not interested in "the people" except insofar as "the people" can be used to serve what they see as their immediate interest. At the moment their immediate interest is in convincing the American electorate that they are, after all, not making a complete muckup in Iraq.
And how on earth can they know who or what "enjoys the confidence of the people" when they are so completely out of touch with anything to do with "the people". I have not even seen any polls in at least a year or more that ask "the people" about who and what groups have and do not have their confidence. And in any case, when "the people" of any country are in such an extreme situation that they are simply struggling and praying for survival from one minute to the next, they are rarely aware of who is doing what to whom anyway.
"the idea of a salvation government is based on the idea of a suspension of Parliament, and a freezing of the constitution, for a period of at least two years..."
Oh goody! Another two years of a hopefully compliant puppet government that will at the very least not be capable of interfering with them as they put in place their self-interested economic, political, and military programs. And two years without the annoying limitations of a constitution - or rather a "constitution" - that legal experts, or - heaven forbid - any Iraqi can point to and use to criticize their efforts. And at the end of two years, hopefully, the current "constitution" will be either forgotten or so out of date that they will simply arrange to compose a new one to fit the situation they have managed to engineer to their own interests. Two years, they hope, might just be long enough to accomplish what they went there to do in the first place.
"which would be followed by new elections under the supervision of the UN."
Well, once they have their permanent - excuse me, "enduring" (can someone please tell me what is the substantive difference between the two words?) - military presence, have placed control of key portions of the economy and basic infrastructure safely under the control of US interests, and have created a political structure and set of laws that serve their interests - in other words, once they have made Iraq sufficiently dependent on the US, and created the structures to keep it that way - they can safely put the political process into other hands since no government, democratically elected or not, will be able to defy the US in any real way.
"Purposes of the hypothetical government would naturally include provision of basic services, security, and so on."
The primary purpose of the hypothetical government will be to provide cover and, hopefully, assistance, to the US in achieving its short-term goal of saving its own domestic a**, and its long-term goal of permanent dominance in Iraq and all that follows from that.
"The Washington observers added there could be surprises in the Iraqi situation..."
Well, that's a big old duuuhhhh! Have there ever been anything BUT surprises in the Iraqi situation? Ya`ni, has ANYTHING there gone as planned or predicted?
"not least because the US congressional elections are upon us. They said: "Anything could happen that might improve the situation by way of reflecting positively on the US administration of Iraq, which is under heavy criticism from the Democratic Party, which is looking forward to a better position in the coming Congress". And the writer adds that the Democratic criticism is especially strong given the spike in US casualties this month."
Blahblahblah wafulan wafulan wafulan. That the congressional elections are upon us is the reason for this sudden mad scramble to look like they are doing something positive there.
"Maliki, for his part, dismisses this coup talk as election-time posturing"
Maliki is turning into a real politian, but he had better watch his back. After all, he is dealing with a bunch of - well, I would call them snakes, but that would be an insult to snakes, which are, after all, very useful animals (I rather like snakes, as a matter of fact). I would call them weasels, but do not want to insult weasels. So, what to call them that is low enough and stupid enough? I don't know.
"...and says the Iraqi security situation would be much improved if it were not tied to the US-administration's apron strings."
You know, I do not like Maliki and his ilk at all, I do not think he and his party and their allies care at all for the good of Iraq and Iraqis but only for their own power and self-interest. However, lately he has said some very intelligent things and shown some awareness of reality, and seems to be showing some independence from his American masters, and this is one example.
"The journalist quotes Maliki: "If there is a single party responsible for the shaky security situation, it is the occupation"."
Right on, ya Nouri!
I would call them snakes, but that would be an insult to snakes, which are, after all, very useful animals (I rather like snakes, as a matter of fact). I would call them weasels, but do not want to insult weasels. So, what to call them that is low enough and stupid enough? I don't know.
Gila monsters? Komodo dragons? Perhaps sharks?
Why don't you just call them "humans" - that should cover the part about 'low.'
Post a Comment
<< Home