Something smells fishy: Al-Maliki, Bush and HRClinton...

[CoffeeCat]

In July, the US-Government began complaining about Al-Maliki and his
lack of leadership.

Al-Maliki responded with VERY harsh criticism of the Bush Administration and
the US Government. Maliki said, "Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can
leave "any time they want".

In an AP story, a top aid to Al-Maliki said the US government was,
"embarrassing" and "violated human rights" while "treating his country like an
"experiment in a US laboratory;"

Does anyone actually think that "The Decider" is going to let this slide without
punishment? Junior is a man who surrounds himself with only those who feed
his delusions. Look at what they did to Joe Wilson. When there is dissension
and a threat to their grand plans, they act swiftly and they destroy.

I knew Al-Maliki was done--after I saw his comments. However, the story slipped
under the radar, but it has reappeared within the last couple of days.

During his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Bush stated his continued support for
Al-Maliki, despite Al-Maliki telling the US government to leave Iraq "anytime. No way does
Bush want him there now. Al Maliki has demonstrated that he will speak the truth to the
Bush Administration.

Then, yesterday--simultaneous with Bush's comments--who do I see calling for Al-Maliki to
step down? Hillary Clinton.

I'm sorry, but something smells fishy. Could it be that Bush can't make the case that Al
Maliki isn't the best leader--because Bush would have to openly admit he made a mistake.
Oh now! We can't have that! So, they get someone else to make the case for them.

Hey! Hillary needs to appear more anti-war---how about her? She can make the case that
we can't. We all understood that Karl Rove's faux criticism of Hillary was designed to
galvanize Dem support of her. Could this be more of that?

Is Bush's outward support of Al-Maliki (a man we know he despises due to his anti-American
comments) and HRC's perfectly-timed anti-Al Maliki comments----possibly collusion between
the two parties?

[yella_dawg]

1. "possibly collusion between the two parties"

Please. Our political operatives, regardless of party affiliation, work for the same people. It ain't us, despite what you might want to think. Hillary Clinton is the poster child for DLC Praise the Almighty Corporation wing of the Democratic party.


How can you possibly suspect collusion with The CEO President?

[AntiFascist]

5. ...and Al-Maliki won't push through the oil law....

which is the main reason he's "not doing a good job".

[CoffeeCat]

7. I think not pushing through the "oil law"...

...and his statements---make it clear that the Bush/Al Maliki relationship
is fractured beyond repair. The "oil law" and Al Maliki's comments are symptoms
of that fractured relationships...and the concerted effort to criticize Al-Maliki
is the result.

I'm sure Bush tossed out random threats, "If you don't cooperate, we'll issue
several governmental reports that disparage you...". Al Maliki didn't cooperate,
and that's probably when he began lobbing his critical one liners.

We invaded and destroyed that country. Can you imagine how Al Maliki feels when we
blame him for the chaos over there? The US Government had done this several times.

I guess we just sit back and watch how this orchestrated effort to oust Maliki plays
out.

We'll also be able to tell who the complicit, warmongering sellouts are-- as we watch
which central characters come forward to play a role in Bush's dramatic production.

[AntiFascist]

10. Under the proposed oil law...

Iraq would only get 20% of the revenues, with 80% going to the oil companies. What "rights" do the oil companies have to make such demands?! It seems to me that the purpose of having a sovereign government is that they be able to determine the conditions by which outsiders have access to their natural resources. Our primary purpose for occupation seems to be that of oil piracy, and Hillary is standing right behind it, ready to take over when Bush leaves office.

[madokie]

13. thats the way I see it too

[CoffeeCat]

6. Wolf Blitzer and the NIE are piling on Maliki now too!

Again...fishy business.

Wolf Blitzer just criticized Al Maliki and insisted that
no matter how many troops we have on the ground, or how
great security is, "If we don't have competent leaders
in Iraq" those factors are moot.

A new National Intelligence Estimate just came out--sharply
criticizing the Al-Maliki government.

Meanwhile, Bush praises Al-Maliki--a man who sardonically told
the US that they "could leave Iraq any time" and said that our
government was "an embarrassment".

Bush is using agencies and willing mouthpieces to generate disdain
for Al Maliki.

My guess is that Bush will feign some sort of personal epiphany--wherein
he claims to be listening to those around him--and decides that Al Maliki
should go. He's all about framing his legacy, and he thinks that this
will make him look like a guy who listens to those around him. We all
know that is true. He sure doesn't listen to the American people!

It really bothers me that the NIE, Wolf Blitzer and Hillary are all singing
from the same songbook. Hillary arrived on stage...on cue. Troublesome.

They all think that we don't notice these machinations, you know? They
think we're all stupid!

[BuyingThyme]

2. I hope Bush doesn't start a war with Iraq.

[rodeodance]

3. So, where does Carl Levin fit into your plot?---as he said Maliki should stop

down before Clinton did.

[Stanchetalarooni]

4. You have a keen understanding as to how it all works.

From whence comes this ability. I am curious to know how it is that people know what it is that they know.
I am often called paranoid because I have a great capacity to speculate. I ask unasked questions. I assess what is possible and then put together what is plausible.
Keep on asking the questions that need to be asked.
Thanks for your post.

[Disturbed]

8. Good cop, bad cop routine.

Dems & Rethugs work in tandem. When Busholini said, "Maliki is a good guy" you know that behind the scene that Busholini is working his henchmen to get rid of this guy.

Look who Maliki's "new best friend is:

[CoffeeCat]

9. Exactly...

Why would Bush sing the praises of Al Maliki, when Al-Maliki is
saying and doing so many things that would make Junior want to haul
tail to the liquor cabinet?

He's fostering a relationship with our evil enemy and leader of Iran. That
act alone thwarts Iranian-war efforts. which is the front-and-center issue at
the WH. If Iraq and Iran are seen as getting along and at peace--and we enter
stage left and bomb up Iran--that does not look good for us. Bush needs Iran and
Iraq to be enemies. Al Maliki knows this, as does Bush. Al Maliki isn't playing.

All of this is an orchestrated set up.

My guess is that Junior will sidle up to a major Democrat--a Democrat who
is calling for the "stepping down" of Maliki. Junior will work in tandem
with that person and other government agencies who are also criticizing
Al-Maliki. Junior will publicly announce that he's re-thinking this issue
and listening to others (what a decent, level-headed, consensus builder our
pResident is, right???) :puke:

Al Maliki will leave, some Dems will appear tough and more antiwar than they are
and Junior will fool some into believing that his neurons aren't made out of ice
and he isn't the sociopathic, rigid child we've all come to know during the past
7 years.

[Disturbed]

12. A different view.

Busholini will keep supporting Maliki in public but when Maliki is replaced the new statement will be that even though he was a "good guy" he just didn't have the support of the Iraqi people. Then he will say that the US must stay in Iraq to help the new Iraqi Leadership govern.

[CoffeeCat]

16. Great analysis...

...and prediction.

It's clear that BushCo wants Maliki out.

The issue of "to Maliki or not to Maliki" also serves another purpose. The debate has been
focused on "to leave or not to leave". Now they'll start a debate about Maliki--which
strays us from the central theme of "Should we be there or not?".

It's like arguing who should be the manager of the Dixie Cups--after the Titanic hits an
iceberg. The question, "Who is in charge" is a red herring. We should abandon ship immediately
and save ourselves. Who is in charge of this sinking catastrophe is a BushCo-designed debate that
will help him avoid the real issue--that Iraq is an un-salvageable disaster.

[Jacobin]

11. Time for a new puppet. Then, things will be all better. See?

Its easy.

Will get Bush another year of saying let's give this (new) guy a chance.

[cgrindley]

14. How can I criticize this post in the way it deserves

without breaking forum rules and getting myself banned? Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Well, I guess there really isn't any polite way to describe the levels of contempt that I feel for this post in a polite and respectful manner, nor can I point out the manifest errors in logic inherent in the post in a way that absolutely could not by a reasonable person be misinterpreted as personal attacks or disparaging remarks, so I guess I'll just keep my big trap shut.

For those of you who are interested in rhetoric, that was called occupatio.

[NNN0LHI]

15. And if both Bush AND HRC supported Maliki as Bush's puppet of Iraq how would things smell to you?

Better?

Don