1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Clinton urges ouster of Iraq's Al-Maliki

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by ConcordCowboy, Aug 23, 2007.

  1. ConcordCowboy

    ConcordCowboy Mr. Buckeye

    12,747 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    Clinton urges ouster of Iraq's Al-Maliki


    Wants Iraqi parliament to name less divisive, more unifying prime minister

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20406226/


    NEW YORK - Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday the Iraqi Parliament should replace embattled Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki with a "less divisive and more unifying figure" to reconcile political and religious factions.

    Clinton, the 2008 Democratic presidential front-runner, made her comments the same day President Bush reaffirmed his support for al-Maliki before a veterans' convention in Kansas City, Mo.

    In a statement released by her Senate office, Clinton echoed a call by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin for Iraq's Parliament to oust al-Maliki in favor of a leader who could restore order to Iraq's unity government.

    "During his trip to Iraq last week, Senator Levin ... confirmed that the Iraqi government is nonfunctional and cannot produce a political settlement because it is too beholden to religious and sectarian leaders," Clinton said. "I share Senator Levin's hope that the Iraqi Parliament will replace Prime Minister Maliki with a less divisive and more unifying figure when it returns in a few weeks."

    Clinton voted in 2002 to authorize military action in Iraq and has since become a staunch critic of the conflict. She traveled to Iraq just before beginning her presidential campaign in January and expressed reservations about al-Maliki's leadership upon her return.

    In a speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, Bush reiterated support for al-Maliki a day after expressing frustration with the Iraqi leader's inability to bridge political divisions in his country.

    "I support him," Bush said. "It's not up to the politicians in Washington, D.C., to say whether he will remain in his position. It is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy and not a dictatorship."


    Clinton was criticized by some of her Democratic rivals Monday after she told the VFW that new military tactics including a troop increase in Iraq's Anbar province appeared to be working.

    In her statement Wednesday, she said the U.S. military had performed "magnificently" in Iraq but Iraq's divisions require a political solution.

    "Our best hope of fostering political progress in Iraq is to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops," she said.



    Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  2. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Lost in the Woods

    4,451 Messages
    131 Likes Received
    Is anyone else tired of listening to politicians who voted for this war trying to shift the blame to the Iraqi government? I find it supremely ironic and hypocritical that people who can't get a thing done under optimal conditions (US congress) so sanctimoniously condemn the ineptitude of politicians working in the supercharged context of a civil war, however much the criticism may be warranted.

    Like you'd get anything done under those circumstances, Mrs. Clinton. Maybe you should have exercised that shrewd judgment of yours BEFORE empowering the president to go in there with the military.

    /end rant.
  3. AtlCB

    AtlCB Active Member

    3,683 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    My problem isn't the fact that the candidates voted for the war. My problem is that now they are criticizing the war and reconstruction efforts now, when they could have come up with a better plan three of four years earlier when an improved plan would have had much better results. Hindsight is always 20/20. Coming up with a better plan years ago would demonstrate that the candidates actually know what they are talking about.
  4. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    Ah yes, a less divisive and more unifying figure. Sounds wonderful.
    Any suggestions Hilary?

    I thought not.
  5. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    59,968 Messages
    3,178 Likes Received
    It should be noted that Hillary is not the only one that thinks this.

    I think recently bush even made a verbal blunder and was criticizing or questioning the guy.

    This is one of those things were they are all thinking it but if someone opens their mouth they are looked upon as being dumb for actually saying it.
  6. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Lost in the Woods

    4,451 Messages
    131 Likes Received
    I think what we're witnessing is a rush by everyone who partook of this ill-fated decision to wipe their hands clean of the affair as the troop reductions and the elections near.

    The republicans save face because they can claim that a military victory was squandered by a corrupt and inept Iraqi government. The military scale back will be presented as a victorious one.

    The democrats save face because they absolve themselves of any responsibility for misreading the intelligence, misreading the administration's intentions and competence, and for sheepishly going along with a policy based on lies, half-truths, and pie-in-the-sky fantasies of a Mid-East democratic transformation when there was ample evidence to the contrary at the time the decision was actually made (some 1/4 of the House voted against authorizing the president which is not an insignificant number).

    It's a win-win situation as far as Washington is concerned. It's not the republicans fault, it's not the democrats fault, but it's the inability of the Iraqi's to make political progress amid the chaos of a civil war.

    The buck stops over there always for these people.
  7. AtlCB

    AtlCB Active Member

    3,683 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I think that the Democrats are pandering to the anti-war faction of their own party. Once one of these candidates win the primary, they may change their stance to capture more of the moderate vote (depending on the polls). The Republicans really don't have a large anti-war faction and know they won't get any votes from the crowd in the GE even if they claim they will pull troops out as soon as they are sworn in.
  8. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Lost in the Woods

    4,451 Messages
    131 Likes Received
    The anti-war faction? You mean the majority of citizens in the United States? That's some faction.

    They are pandering, however, and trying to gloss over their own responsibility in the situation.
  9. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,442 Messages
    1,457 Likes Received
    sasq, you are so far to the left you are about to fall off the edge. For more then 3 years the media has made a drumbeat of Iraq being a total disaster. It would be suprising if the majority did NOT want to leave. AND yet still most of that majority do not want to cut and run- they want another alternative.
  10. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Lost in the Woods

    4,451 Messages
    131 Likes Received
    The same thing was said when a stout minority opposed the war immediately after the invasion but the political terrain has shifted a bit since then, hasn't it?

    We are going to "cut and run" sooner or later, burmafrd, because our position in Iraq is untenable politically and militarily. That's just the nature of civil war. Of course, when the people responsible for this foreign policy disaster finally admit to this reality, many more people will have died and they will surely call it something much more noble like "strategic withdraw" or "operation return home with honor" or some other grandiose euphemism. The unavoidable reality of Iraq is that no government will be perceived as legitimate so long as our boots are on the ground.

    Besides, it's not really "cut and run" when the majority of Iraqis want us gone, is it? Isn't that merely honoring the sovereign will of the Iraqi people?
  11. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,442 Messages
    1,457 Likes Received
    Your shortsidedness is telling. we cannot just CUT AND RUN no matter how much you want us to. Unlike Vietnam, which really was in a pretty unimportant place when its all said and done, and had no vital resources or influence on such, Iraq has all that oil-and is next to even more in Kuwait and Saudi and elsewhere- and is right next to Iran, which actually is THE biggest threat around right now. As regards the so called will of the Iraqi people- no one knows what they really want; so many are just trying to keep their heads down. And mark my words: if we did just cut and ran, the blood would REALLY start to flow.
  12. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Lost in the Woods

    4,451 Messages
    131 Likes Received
    Shortsighted in continuing to devote resources and to kill people to prop up a dead-end and ruinously expensive oil economy. You do realize per your own post that we're essentially subsidizing the oil industry? Whatever happened to letting the market find its own way? I'm guessing alternative fuels would be much more competitive if the US government wasn't using tax payer money to secure steady access to oil supplies through generous foreign aid and costly military interventions. Isn't the free market a pillar of conservative belief?
  13. AtlCB

    AtlCB Active Member

    3,683 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Sasquatch,

    I'm specifically talking about the nutcases who go out and protest with ridiculous signs such as "Bush is a Nazi" and scream out a bunch of insane slogans - the anti-war faction. Even though the war is a big issue, many of us care about other issues such as corruption, education, taxes, spending, etc. These idiots are too stupid to research their own topic, and cannot fathom that there are other issues that voters care about.

Share This Page