U.S. Forces Meant To Protect Iraqi Regime

[ECH1969]

The Bush administration has decided to significantly increase U.S. troops in Baghdad to help protect the new government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki.

U.S. officials said the addition of at least 12,000 U.S. troops in Baghdad was meant to prevent a Shi'ite coup against Al Maliki. They said the U.S. military and intelligence community has detected evidence of Shi'ite plots within the government to overthrow Al Maliki and establish an Iranian-aligned regime.

"There is an assessment that Al Maliki could be killed or deposed by fellow Shi'ites under orders from Iran," an official said. "Our fight in Baghdad is against an Iranian plot."

The Bush administration has cited deteriorating security in Baghdad for the increase in U.S. forces. Over the last six weeks, the Defense Department has halted the steady decline in the U.S. military presence and launched Operation Together Forward with the Iraq Army and police.

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2006/august/08_20_3.h...

[leftchick]

1. what a shocker!

who could have predicted?

[bemildred]

5. Indeed, "No shit, Sherlock!"

The stooge government must not fall before Fall.

[leftchick]

6. I hope the new embassy has a heli pad

It looks like they are going to need it....

[saigon68]

12. A Big One Too, Lots of Quisling Puppets will scatter Like RATS

[FlavaKreemSnak]

2. Yes the people there will have to be kept under very strict crackdown

And it will not be easy, it is not a small little closed in place like Palestine. Iraq is so big I don't know how many troops they will need to keep it all under crackdown but it will be a lot!

[HuffleClaw]

3. to 'protect' ? hmmmmmm

or how about 'to keep in line with BushCo. policy and aims'? that is likely more accurate.

[OregonBlue]

4. "under orders from Iran," is really the point of this. If Maliki is

killed, they will have their excuse to start going after Iran. If I were Mr. Maliki, I'd be pretty nervous. These guys would do anything to get their new war and stay in power.

[SquireJons]

7. I doubt that will work

A war with Iran would be a disaster and very unpopular except with the bat crazy base. It's a sure fire way to lose elections in the next two years. Now if they had done it a year and a half ago, before it was obvious to most americans that nation building in the middle east is a pipe dream, then they would have had support. But not anymore. Most americans are tired of war, particularly one that can not be won without wholesale initialization of an entire country.

[Supersedeas]

8. what, the ballyhoo about the inky fingers and elections was premature like

the flight suit mission accomplished photo-op

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. I guess this is the latest reason why we invaded Iraq, to protect

Al Maliki.

[daleo]

10. A government that needs the protection of foreign troops can't last.

It is the best way possible to demonstrate that it has no legitimacy.

[gratuitous]

11. Just you wait until them Eye-racki forces are standing up

You all will be standing down out of the other side of your liberal mouths then, boy!

Okay, enough with incoherent freeposity. Yes, a government dependent on a foreign power for its standing in its own country is no longer a free government, but a satellite state or a client nation.

[saigon68]

13. RAT PUPPETS OF THE CHIMPANZEE

[daleo]

15. Great photo of a cabinet meeting.

It works for the Bush cabinet or the Iraqi government.

[goforit]

14. More bullshit from the Rove campaign.