Also read this dude. This does not sound good as we can't even trust the ones we put in power. How can we help people when they are running to Syria and Iran for support? Read this and keep in mind, this is not the democracy we dreamed of. If this middle east oil is flowing, guess where it flows to? If Syria and Iran back this guy and run his country, then it flows only where Iran and Syria want's it.
I know you will tell me, that is why we have to stay. See it leads to more, down the road and then we will see. Guess what countries can call the suicide bombers and say let's stop it now? Those countries want a piece of the Iraq pie now. When Nouri al-Maliki, get's in bed with these countries, then the suicide bombers stop or it gets much better. This Nouri al-Maliki is going to play everyone for all they are worth. It's a bad mess is what it is. How long does this Nouri al-Maliki last, when he starts selling people out? Then who is the 3rd one that comes in? We won the war and marched in dude but we never expected this to happen, what is happening. I know your answer is to stay and promote democracy. All the people that want to be free are moving out and getting out of Iraq, while they have a chance. The ones that want to fight for Iraq, for whatever reason, different ethnic groups, different countries, are pouring in. They are raising havoc now and they will when we leave untill one of these rulers with an iron fist moves back in and he will not be a free man. It will be a man backed by another country to run Iraq. This is why it is bad probs if we stay or if we leave. This self healing promoting cheer and good will with demorcracy for all doesn't work when the people do not unite. Do you think they will unite? Not a chance. Oh no, in your mind it is no religion involved but those ethic groups have religion by their name. I already reported to you, the christians there are being asked for money to stay or to convert to Islam, or bad things will happen to them. Is this democracy? That is not freedom and let freedom ring.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Losing U.S. support could make al-Maliki look elsewhere
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/...iki/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It is vogue in Washington to place blame for the chaos in Iraq squarely at that the feet of its leader, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. In recent days calls have grown louder in many corners of the U.S. government for al-Maliki to step down.
As violence in Iraq continues and next month's assessment of the U.S. troop surge approaches,
the U.S. has stepped up pressure on al-Maliki for failing to nudge his factious government toward political reconciliation, including passing legislation distributing Iraq's oil wealth and amending the constitution.
President Bush this week called al-Maliki a "good man with a difficult job," but also expressed frustration at the snail's pace of political reconciliation among Sunni and Shiia factions in Iraq. The U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, too, said political progress in Iraq has been disappointing.
But members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, aren't engaging in such diplomatic niceties. The Chairman of the Senate Arms Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, called for al-Maliki's ouster.
The assault comes on the heels of a boycott against al-Maliki by both Sunni and Shiia lawmakers and ministers in his cabinet, which could further paralyze the government.
Al-Maliki's critics following the debate in Washington are using that criticism it as ammunition to call for a new prime minister. One of their strongest weapons came this week when Crocker warned that American support for the al-Maliki government did not constitute a "blank check."
Maliki's response: Back off.
In a trip to Syria this week the Iraqi prime minister scolded his American friends for daring to challenge the will of the Iraqi people who installed him and dismissed their criticism as Washington politics.
It's a role reversal that speaks volumes about the inherent complexities and contradictions
of the Bush administration's policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East.
When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003,
Bush promised Iraq would become a beacon of democracy in sea of Middle East dictatorships. When he won re-election, Bush made promoting democracy in the region the cornerstone of his foreign policy.
But the administration has struggled with the need for stability and support for the democratic process.
The election gains of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt all proved democracy could produce undesired results for the U.S. In each of these cases the U.S. abandoned the victor, saying that democratic "elections" are different than governing democratically.
In Iraq, too,
the U.S. has abandoned a democratically elected leader when it withdrew its support for Ibrahim al-Jafari, Iraq's former prime minister who also failed to bring reconciliation among Shiia, Sunni and Kurd factions in his government. The U.S. was involved in engineering al-Jafari's ouster in favor of al-Maliki.
Now, despite being democratically elected, al-Maliki risks being cast aside with the same kind of disregard for the democratic selection process the U.S. has criticized around the world.
Publicly no Bush administration official will call for his removal, but the messages emanating from Washington are being seen as signals to al-Maliki's critics that his days are numbered.
But as with Hezbollah and Hamas, Maliki's message to the U.S. is that he will survive without the U.S.
Standing in Syria, a foe which the U.S. has blasted for its failure to respect democracy in Lebanon and its own country, al-Maliki said he would "find friends elsewhere" if he was abandoned by the United States.
A loss of U.S. support could force al-Maliki to turn to Syria or Iran, which the U.S. accuses of meddling in Iraq, supporting insurgents and sending deadly explosives to kill U.S. troops.
That would not be a good day for democracy in Iraq.