Whose Country Is It, Anyway?

-->
Bush Administration, Iraq War

Like we didn’t know.

Senior Shiite politicians said today that the American ambassador has told Shiite officials to inform the Iraqi prime minister that President Bush does not want him to remain the country’s leader in the next government. …

… Ambassador Khalilzad said that President Bush “doesn’t want, doesn’t support, doesn’t accept” Mr. Jaafari to be the next prime minister, according to Mr. Taki, a senior aide to Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shiite bloc. It was the first “clear and direct message” from the Americans on the issue of the candidate for prime minister, Mr. Taki said.

Didn’t the Iraqis have an election? Isn’t it their government? Isn’t … never mind. Sorry I asked.

Share Button
7 Comments

6 Comments

  1. Donna  •  Mar 28, 2006 @11:27 pm

    I think it was alyosha who opined in a previous post comment something about Bush and company actually wanting all the conflict.
    I have to agree to the very real possibility that the on-going Iraqi conflict is useful to the Bush team if they intend to stay in Iraq [remember those permanent bases??] to forevermore gain control of Iraqi oil for American oil interests. It takes time to slap the Iraqi population into exhaustion and ultimate Iraqi submission to outside control. I have long had an image of a pack of thieves ‘setting a fire’ to distract attention while they proceed to loot.

    We Americans know that Bush and Rove promote continual conflict here at home with hot-button issues and rhetoric which effectively keeps common citizens of different views from the calmness needed to work on problems cooperatively. Why should we think that same divide and conquer strategy isn’t being also purposefully used on the Iraqis?

  2. jianying  •  Mar 28, 2006 @11:51 pm

    Saddam kept power exactly the way as Donna described, the war with iran and kuwait are the two examples.

  3. Zeus  •  Mar 29, 2006 @3:30 am

    Bush and company always intended to go into Iraq for the oil. If it worked for them in the short term, they could take credit for toppling Saddaam’s cruel regime and reap the monetary benefits. If it works for them in the long term, they can claim a legacy and reap the monetary benefits. A win-win. The only problem with this premise – it didn’t and it won’t.

  4. Edward Deevy  •  Mar 29, 2006 @4:42 am

    This war fought with the (crazy) idea of changing the political map of the Middle East. Establish a pro-American/pro-Israel government in Baghdad and everyone would live happy forever. BushCo obviously have not given up on this goal…but it’s NOT going to happen. Looks like there is a gathering momentum to tell the Americans to get the fuck out of their country. Should we be surprised?

  5. Ick of the East  •  Mar 29, 2006 @7:11 am

    Bush can’t even spell sovrinty, so it ain’t likely that he understands the concept.

    “What? You mean I cain’t pick the Prahm Minster? Karl!”

  6. Jeff R  •  Mar 29, 2006 @8:17 am

    That one statement alone (Bush saying that he doesn’t want and will not accept Iraq’s current prime minister) is probably going to convince whatever parts of the world have not already been convinced that Iraq is now officially a “puppet” of the United States.

    Everything Bush touches turns to mud.

1 Trackback



    About this blog

    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me
















    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile