Thursday, August 23, 2007

"Bush at a dead end": Atwan

Abdulbari Atwan argues that Bush's flip-flop on Maliki shows Bush doesn't have any alternatives left for continuing the Iraq-occupation project. He concludes by saying that the flip-flop on Maliki will embolden Maliki's his enemies inside and outside of the "political process" and hasten his downfall. He argues as follows:
President Bush's confusion, between withdrawing his confidence from the Maliki government, then renewing it, all in the space of a two-day period, is tantamount to the coup de grace for the man and for the government, because this will push the groups that are in opposition to him, like the Sunni bloc, the Sadrist group and the Fadhila party, to toughen their attitude and augment the level of their demands. Likewise this will give the resistance factions the feeling that their victory is imminent, and that is in fact the case. No doubt President Bush will play for additional time, and wait for the report from General Petraeus expected the middle of next month, which certainly will indicate the failure of the American project for the occupation of Iraq, confirming the defeat of President Bush and his administration.


Blogger Jim said...

Hey Badger: All the rightie blogs are trumpeting the squib in an Italian news agency that Izzat al-Douri has agreed to do some kind of deal with Maliki. The obscure Italian news agency sources it to "one of the party's former top officials, Abu Wisam al-Jashaami, [who] told pan-Arab daily Al Hayat."

I'm suspicious of it since the sourcing is so . . . narrow. And, frankly, Italian. But you're the guy who knows the Arab press. So our blogosphere turns its lonely eyes to you: did such a report appear in al-Hayat?

6:41 PM  
Blogger badger said...

(1) Yes, there was a report in Al-Hayat the other day that said al-Douri was severing ties with AlQ and joining the national resistance, which is pretty silly because I don't think anyone ever suggested the ridiculous idea that he had ties with AlQ.

(2) The report also said he was joining the national resistance, and in connection with that interested in negotiating, I forget, I think it said with the Americans. The resistance is intent on kicking the occupier out, not on negotiating, so that was a kind of a funny thing to say too. (Al-Hayat takes their stuff down after a day, so I can't give you chapter and verse).

(3) The Italians you refer to ADNKronos or something, compounded the absurdity by saying something to the effect he was signing up with the government, or some such thing. I filed the whole thing under weird, but now that you called my attention to the fact that the rightie blogs are trumpeting this, I see where it could make some sense, as a non-falsifiable story that indicates "progress" ahead of the Petraeus report.

7:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yesterday Uruknet ran Baath Party's statement about it:

"In a statement posted on, the Baath party strongly denies the content of the report published by Al-Hayat .

The Baath party says that "Al-Hayat's article " contains blatant lies" and reaffirms that rejects again any negotiation with the US unless based on its announced condition. The Baath party's statement adds that al-Hayat article is part of a campaing to split the resistance and to confuse people."

And today The Telegraph (link to Uruknet again) is floating the story of another helping hand offered by the Baath, this one even less believable than the previous.

5:57 PM  
Blogger Suma said...

Hi, the blog is very interesting...


2:40 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home