Why is the US attempting to distance itself

[malaise]

from Saddam's lynching? All this bullshit from the US General (on BBC international) about Iraq's sovereignty is rubbish.

[BR_Parkway]

1. It's because they didn't anticipate the backlash - just like greeting

us with flowers - these idiots pushed for what they wanted, and never once think about the consequences. GW has finally succeeded at something for once in his life - he's succeeding in making a martyr out of Saddam while trying to make him into a villain.

King George has reverse Midas - everything he touches turns to shit

[Disturbed]

2. Busholini touches his head a lot.

His brain has turned into shit.

[dipsydoodle]

5. Head touching

is indicative of lying through his teeth.

[donheld]

3. That surprises you? The Bushies always find someone else to blame.

They've done it from day one, and they'll keep doing it. Why shouldn't they, the media lets them get away with it every single time. Most americans just buy right into it.

[malaise]

4. No surprise here

but I can't believe they believe this planet is that stupid.

[H2O Man]

6. The administration

is planning to replace the current leadership in Iraq. We are witnessing something similar to the series of ugly events in Vietnam, when the US changed the leadership there several times, hoping to find the correct "answer."

Things may surge out of control on a level beyond what we have become used to.

[malaise]

7. Maliki knows that

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6226953.stm
<snip>
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has made clear he dislikes being the country's leader and would prefer to leave the job before his term ends.

In an extensive interview with a US newspaper, Mr Maliki said he would certainly not be seeking a second term.

A compromise choice, his tenure has been plagued by factional strife within both the country and government, and rumours the US has no faith in him.

"I wish I could be done with it even before the end of this term," he said.

"I didn't want to take this position," he told the Wall Street Journal. "I only agreed because I thought it would serve the national interest, and I will not accept it again."

[H2O Man]

11. Exactly.

Right on target. He knows.

[michaz]

8. Kind of late for that now.

We initiate the whole thing from Day 1 and now we want to try and distance ourselves from Sadam's death? Kind of hard to do that. WMD initiated this whole thing, remember? And they were Saddam's WMD's. Just ask Buch, he will tell us.

[Selatius]

9. It's too late to distance oneself at this point in the game.

The occupation is seen as an American one, and so when Saddam died, he did not die on the watch of Iraqis. He died on the watch of America. People will remember that when Saddam died, he was killed by, as they say, "American puppets." He was not killed, in their eyes, by a government that really represents them.

[malaise]

10. Only in Bushspeak can there be a notion

of sovereign occupation. These fuggers are beyond delusional if they believe anyone but the dumbest of people buy this crap.

[Solly Mack]

12. Because shirking accountability is something the US does well?

Because it serves the purpose of America to blame Iraq for the actions of the US?


Because maintaining the manufactured reality that Iraq is "sovereign" aids the other lies about Iraq?

Because if the claim that Iraq is "sovereign" can be maintained then every bad thing in Iraq is Iraq's fault?

And if it's Iraq's fault then it can't be America's fault?