Posted on 08/22/2007 12:15:24 PM PDT by Anti-Hillary
DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - Iraq's prime minister lashed out Wednesday at U.S. criticism, saying no one has the right to impose timetables on his elected government and that his country "can find friends elsewhere." Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki blamed the U.S. presidential campaign for the recent tough words about his government, from President Bush and from other U.S. politicians.
Bush on Tuesday said he was frustrated with Iraqi leaders' inability to bridge political divisions. But he added that only the Iraqi people can decide whether to sideline al-Maliki.
"Clearly, the Iraqi government's got to do more," Bush said. "I think there's a certain level of frustration with the leadership in general, inability to work—come together to get, for example, an oil revenue law passed or provincial elections."
Al-Maliki, on a trip to Syria, reacted harshly when asked about the recent comments from U.S. officials.
"No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people," he said at a news conference in Damascus at the end of the three-day visit to Syria.
"Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere," al-Maliki said.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
“Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere,” al-Maliki said.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Those spilling their blood and paying for your reconstruction have every right to set timetables. This guy is a buffoon.
Fine! Find 'em and get your country in order so we can get the heck out.
So are our elected who INSIST we rebuild Iraq. This man will be gone soon and in his place will be Saddam the Second chosen by the Islamic leaders. Then Bush will have his chosen by the people government in Iraq. IOW we are wasting our time and resources in Iraq doing nation building. If not for lucrative contracts going to certain corporations we would be out of there. That is the sole reason we are building Iraq as it is a corporate gold mine to a few companies providing U.S. taxpayer paid services there. There will never be a free Iraq.
No worries.. Our new Sunnis buds will take this guy out sooner or later..
And our boys and girls are in harms-way over there for this piece of work?
Well the Pig-O-Phobes have told us it is time to go home. We can now pull out immediately without losing face to our other enemy, the democrats.
We may all be created equal, but we sure as hell don’t stay that way once outside of the womb. Certain groups are noticeably less than equal.
Also, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if US dollars served as personal 'gold mines' for Maliki, and some high ranking members of the Iraqi government.
Just sayin'......
/jasper
Bribes is likely the key ingredient holding that government together. As a nation we need to stop pretending we can change the culture of Iraq. It's been what is is since before the days of Daniel. It will be so for long after we leave there.
Now I understand. If the war effort costs ‘x’ but we have maybe 5% in ‘x’ in business contracts that therefor is THE reason we are still in Iraq. Your theory has us in Iraq for pennies against the cost of this thing. And all this time I thought we were there for the oil. I’d like to think we are there for a number of reasons, the main ones being a bit more noble.
Maliki will fall when we withdraw, he is asking for his own death. Muqtada al-Sadr is just waiting to become the New Saddam of Iraq, except he will be best buddies with Iran. We will have created another country that hates us. We need the Michael Savage stratagy-Women and children and some men 24 hours to leave a designated area-massive air strikes and bombing, send in Iraqi military to clear up resistance, WE LEAVE. Hows that?
Those who get the 5% in business contracts including the very nation building itself don't care where the money comes from. And quite a few of our elected don't mind throwing away taxpayer dollars to them it seems. A few good Conservatives though have raised questions about the vast amount of U.S. money loosely flowing around in Iraq. You know when LBJ was tied to contractors in Nam the GOP has pretty well believed it.
Tell me as a nation what did we stand to gain by trying to make a democracy out of a nation with several thousand years of history being otherwise? Nothing as it can not be done. So why then are we doing it anyway for then? You may see those contracts as being a small issue but the corporations involved in this mess doing the rebuilding making the money off U.S. taxpayers do not.
It's also about the oil. Even my dad a life long straight ticket Republican now says as much and he's seen it all from The Great Depression in which he grew up in on.
BINGO!!!
You nailed it. Those lucrative contracts are not only the reason for us still being in Iraq but they were the reason for us going in there in the first place.
as to Maliki's comments, I wish he would lash out a little further and say that Levin, Reid, Murtha and the other rats that had popped off so much should resign from their seats for aiding and abetting the terrorists...
Exactally and it was sold to us as going in to take out Saddam. That was something many conservatives supported with reservations thinking that was the stated purpose for going to Iraq. Saddam is dead that was the mission. Mission Accomplished! Stop moving the goals and changing our agenda Mr Bush! Our long overdue exit may well have bought us a second war coming very soon. Thanks to an overstay in Iraq we do not have the resources we did in 2004.
As for the oil? If Bush would unite the GOP instead of dividing it and put his foot down on Radical Environmentalism in our own nation we could become if needed energy self sufficient. That IMO should have been done rather than trying to change M.E. culture.
Now as for the Three DEM Stooges? LOL watch for this. IF a DEM gets POTUS and IF the DEM's hold the houses you will see those three pushing for cutting checks to every thug who is a thug in Iraq just as we are doing now. They are simply mad because the checkbook isn't in their hands and their friends aren't getting their cut of the rebuild Iraq pie.
I am in agreement on all points.
“If not for lucrative contracts going to certain corporations we would be out of there. That is the sole reason we are building Iraq as it is a corporate gold mine to a few companies providing U.S. taxpayer paid services there.”
In any given WOT threat on FR, you’ll always find these Ron Paul people filling threads with anti-American conspiritorial nonsense.
Actually, Iran's "best buddy" is Al-Hakim, the head of the Badr Organization, and Maliki's right hand man. Both lived in Iran for many years and depened on its patronage. By contrast, Sadr (who stayed in Iraq during this time) is something of a nationalist compared to them.
“Those lucrative contracts are not only the reason for us still being in Iraq but they were the reason for us going in there in the first place.”
In reality, (ie, not in the Ron-Paul-blame-America-first world), the reasons for going into Iraq were clearly articulated in the congressional authorization. Your attempts to peddle your conspiritorial psycho-babble on a conservative forum are in vain.
“Saddam is dead that was the mission.”
A ficticous claim on your part. Did you even read our objectives regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom?
“Stop moving the goals and changing our agenda Mr Bush! “
Stop spewing conspiritorial psycho-babble, Mr. Ron Paul Fan! We are doing nothing now that hasn’t already been sanctioned by congress in ‘03. The goals and agenda have not changed.
Oh, how naive you are.
Your attempts to peddle your conspiritorial psycho-babble on a conservative forum are in vain.
I'm not peddling anything to anybody. You believe what you want to believe and I'll believe my judgment based on what I see.
Oh I see. Then explain Jimmy Duncan's position on Iraq. Jimmy Duncan the son of late congressman John J Duncan SR. He is by no means conspiratorial but bases his votes and speeches on good old fashioned Conservative common sense.
Now I bet you dollars to donuts that if a DEM had taken us to Iraq under the conditions we are now you would be saying the exact same thing I am against the DEM. I support good Conservative Republicans. I'll not support a RINO with bad ideas and policy anymore than I would a DEM. It's not conspiracy it's just good old fashioned corrupt politics as usual in Washington DC amongst DEM and GOP alike. Most people don't get mad about it as long as it's their party doing it. Which is why Reid, Murtha etc are mad now. Bush vs Gore for example. Bush told you plainly he and Gore were not that far apart on most issues. On that Bush was telling us the truth.
I do support Ron Paul for POTUS. I would vote for Tancredo or Duncan Hunter as well in the general. I'm also still waiting to see who the Constitution Party might run. I am not supporting the top choices in the polls. No Rudy for me. Mitt should be Night Manager at Kerry's House of Waffles. John McCain forget it. Fred Thompson aka John McCain without the temper? LOL Man you think supporters of Ron Paul are gullible? People in FR have very short and selective memories about Fred Thompson.
Fred likely could not have won against Bob Clement for reelection. His series was gonna be canceled in the senate. His state was done with him over the impeachment fiasco where Fred rolled over and played dead not to mention his Not Guilty vote on Perjury.
You see this was the same man who years before had taken down a felon governor in our state. Nope Fred is Bob Dole 2 which is what will happen if he gets the nod. The DEMs though hope either Fred or Rudy win the GOP primaries so either way they win in the general election just has they have since Reagan left office.
As for our War in Iraq? Look at the blasted Authorization of use of Force. It's a joke. What is worse there were many other nations more deserving of some payback for 9/11 much more so than Iraq but Bush even before 9/11 was itching for a war in Iraq. Saddam needed a Letter of Marque and or Reprisal and a price put on his head for some agents of opportunity to take advantage of.
Not a single attacker on 9/11 came from Iraq. I am for taking out terrorist. There were much bigger fish in the pond who had much more to do with it than Saddam. But I supported taking out Saddam as we did with reservations. I do not support the rebuilding or our nation building of Iraq PERIOD!
I read it or the authorization of force. Nice to know the United Nations now comes first over the United States Constitution. You know we declared a World War on two paragraphs which even a 2nd grader could understand. We authorized troops in Iraq to uphold UN resolutions whatever and it took how many paragraphs? Over 30 so I stopped counting. As well what word is mentioned the most? United Nations at least 21 times.
I have an idea me and you would never see eye to eye on what war is and how it should be fought either. Let's put it this way. I believe if we went to war with Iraq that the nation should still be smoldering in ruins incapable of ever again in several generations of becoming a threat to anyone. Either do it right or stay home. Bush and congress did neither.
BTW it was W who was strutting around saying we were in Iraq to remove Saddam.
Pray for W and Our Troops
It is and it does. But rather than dealing head on with our congress and trhe fringe enviromentalist who have and begin drilling our own oil we do what? Even Jeb stopped it remember? BTW if the Bush's don't wish to be seen as having personal interest in certain business areas then perhaps they should have cut those ties perhaps? Not just the M.E. but China as well. But they are very slow learners on that issue it seems yes very slow indeed.
It is and it does. But rather than dealing head on with our congress and the fringe enviromentalist who have stopped drilling and building of more refineries and begin drilling our own oil we do what? Even Jeb stopped it remember? BTW if the Bush’s don’t wish to be seen as having personal interest in certain business areas then perhaps they should have cut those ties perhaps? Not just the M.E. but China as well. But they are very slow learners on that issue it seems yes very slow indeed.
This guy is the leader of a duly elected sovereign government. At least that's what we say. Seems to me if Condi and Pelosi and the local dogcatcher can go tango with Assad, his next door neighbor can too. As for timetables, they are bunk to begin with. But this speech imo is meant for internal consumption. Maliki knows he needs us.
There is no political will in the USA to become energy independent. What I would do is to build nuclear power plants near the border in Mexico and then export the surplus power to us.
Only one problem on the practical side of it. They require lots of cooler water and flowing streams or lakes etc for the most part. TVA had to shut down one last week due to high discharge temps on the cooling water side. Building nukes within the U.S. in general isn't catching the political fallout that drilling for oil and building refineries do which right now is what we need. Even more so a decade down the road. That is the key to getting us away from M.E. politics. We need the northern slope of Alaska opened to drilling and the Florida coast as well. Even my state Tennessee has some oil wells in it.
The terrorist can be dealt with by existing laws and means. We got into the terrorism mess because Ford took covert assassinations off the table in dealing with foreign heads of state even though the Constitution allows for this method. Carter then rubber stamped it. We need to learn from our own and others mistakes when dealing with terrorist.
Remember Russia chased Bin Ladden for years in the same region. We need a different tactic to get him like a local mercenary. Our troops are doing their best but they stick out like a sore thumb and he can see them or know about them coming for miles.
I would say build the oil refineries in Mexico but that too defeats the purpose. Their government is corrupt at best and we need to control our own energy policies. We've become a nation too dependent on others for our existence and needs to be met. It is to the point we are doing regular business with those we are most likely to face in war including giving them our technology.
You are not being rational w respect to the Bushes ties with oil interests. You seem to think that cutting all ties with anybody associated w oil would somehow be meaningful. Life is complicated. For my part I have come to believe our current President is primarily driven by what he believes is right. He disregards poll numbers. He disregards his entire standing. If you accept that most politicians and people in general care about their legacy and how they are percieved then it is apparent that President Bush values his perception of right above how people feel about him. If you also accept that they are set for life financially then you can’t question his motives as you did earlier. Now you have moved on to why doesn’t he address other issues such as drilling domestically again implying ulterior motives addressed above. You should step back a minute and consider what is reasonably attainable in our current environment. We all have things we’d like to do differently and most on this board would agree with you. I would suggest that doesn’t translate into dubious motives for our current actions.
You guys just never give up, do ya? LOL!
Ok so I reckon then we can say it was fine for Clintons family to use their position to influence Slick Willie. The China business deals etc. I know then you had no problem with that right? We can also say it was just dandy that they held files on people using the DOJ to obtain information right? And we can say that since Bill Clinton was for nation building we should be too then right? Funny thing Bush in 2000 BEFORE being elected was against it and blasted Gore for the Clinton Administration doing it. But everything I guess changed in what Conservatives are supposed to stand for when GW Bush was elected POTUS.
His two terms have been a royal disaster. He has used the WOT and Trade to expand or try to expand his powers beyond limits set forth in the Constitution. He has allowed the DOJ in a Clinton fashion t begin building databases on law abiding citizens on everything from web surfing habits to medical records. But it's OK because a Republican is doing it and not those disgusting DEM's? If Bush was a Republican 90% of FR would had be calling for his impeachment.
Some Republicans never learn. 1996 the GOP had a mandate given them in 1994 with the biggest wins in history so what does it do? Bob Dole!! With all the qualified Conservatives the GOP has who is being pushed for 2008? John McCain, John McCain thinkalike Thompson, Wudy Wed Dwess, and Mitt night manager of Kerry's house of waffles Romney. The Conservatives get shoved aside yet again and Freepers are helping the RINO's doing the pushing.
If the GOP does not get it's collective act together within the next few months it will see the same magnitude of losses handed it the DEMs saw in 1994 as well as the White House. The GOP needs to stop pretending it's RINO's are Conservatives and act accordingly. When Republicans want Arnoid the Kennedy in a federal office that is a sign something bad is wrong. Of course people didn't want to hear about Arnoid the Kennedy because he looked so great in the movies. By the time he leaves office Gray Davis will likely look Conservative.
As for disregards Bush has done plenty of them. He has disregarded the Conservative base time after time. He has disregarded anyone who tells him anything he doesn't want to hear. He has surrounded himself with RINO's from failure administrations past making the same mistakes and expecting different results. He is no Reagan he's just like his dad, and his policies in some cases make him look like LBJ the second. If those are the values of Republicans then we are in deep trouble.
I always enjoy your posts...FWIW.
Well let's put it this way. My values didn't change in 2000 just because it was Our Turn to wiz away the Constitution. I still pretty much stand for what I did in 1999 when I came here and in 2000 when I voted for Howard Phillips. {I bet you thought I was a Libertarian huh}.
The current GOP leadership meaning those controlling party policy and the DEMs are taking us in the wrong direction. Either the GOP changes course this election cycle or it may be facing a replacement in the next POTUS election cycle.
With the Internet now replacing the idiot tube as the place for people to get news and information the chains of the RINO's running the GOP and the Liberal MSM will come off. That is something even the greatest party spin Meister's can not stop now. People are getting fed up with having two Democratic Parties and no Conservative voice. Conservative activism moves mountains that liberals try to put in the way. Conservatism won the GOP it's 1994 majority and Liberalism within the GOP will cause the losses. Either the GOP must change or else it will face the same fate of the very party it replaced. The next two election cycles will tell it all.
Thanks. I hope people are ready to live under Hillary or another DEM's turn with all the nice new powers Bush obtained for them. That should be a sobering thought for people to consider. The GOP since 1996 has been it's own worse enemy doing far more damage to itself and nation than the DEM's could have ever inflected had it simply fought back. It didn't have to be that way but the GOP has no spine to stand up to those within the party taking it in a liberal direction.
The love of retaining power at all cost became the driving force over the party instead of the very principles that gave the party it's time in power. The GOP sold it's soul.
In 2000 it was The Constitution Party's turn to "wiz away the Constitution?"
What do you mean "our turn?" I'm a Republican. You aren't.
Every phony third-party-voting conservative on this board is a Democrat. You don't speak for me. You don't speak for any actual conservative. Got it?
You’ve always had a wing of the GOP that is liberal...they talk the talk to get yahoos like me to vote for them...but they don’t really believe in smaller govt and the like...i personally know some politicians...do you realize the ego these people have? Do you realize that it’s all about them?...everything is about them...for most not even their family comes before their career in politics...i don’t put much stock in them...what’s the answer...well frankly i don’t know...but i do feel your pain and the powers at be in the GOP would have a cow if Duncan Hunter or Tancredo came into power...they would clip their wings and ruin them...that i believe....Reagan fought those very bastards himself...you know what i mean....at least i think you do.
Let me set you straight on a matter right now. You better be thankful this nation had good men like Howard Phillips who were working in the Conservative Trenches before Ronnie even decided to run for office. The GOP reaped sizable gains because of his activism. I doubt you know enough about it to even know how that came about.
Back when Carter was in office a small group of men all came together to put into action an idea that Paul Weyrich had. Among them was Ed McAteer {likely a name you never heard} he was a retire executive, Howard Phillips, and Jerry Falwell. A rather stranger mixture but it would result in a political change of course for the nation. These were the major brains behind the Conservative Revolution that began during Carter's term. Phillips later went on to found the Conservative Caucus and Taxpayer Party in 1996 and later to become the Constitution Party.
It was Weyrich who after the 1995 takeover was first warning the people something bad was going on within the GOP and he was right.
I still vote GOP most of the time however I have not voted GOP in the POTUS general election since 1996. Bob Dole did it for me. I held my nose that time but no more. You can not win without votes from ones such as me. If you want me to vote for your party then run someone worth voting for howabout it? I've done gave Fred Thompson one vote and I'll never give him another one. I do not trust him in office. I'll not vote for the two N.E. Liberals nor the Open Borders shill from Arizona. Other than that I'll see what the GOP has to offer. I can think of three Republicans currently in the POTUS race I would have no problems voting for in the general election. But I will not vote for a Republican Liberal.
I understand what you are saying and agree with it including their ego's being a major problem. Three Republicans I could vote for in the general are Paul, Tancredo, or Hunter. The others I can't and I won't :>} I want to see another POTUS with the political genius of Reagan expose them for what they are rather than letting them become his master.
No that was the prevailing attitude in the GOP though which led me to vote Independent in 2000.
I want to see another POTUS with the political genius of Reagan expose them for what they are rather than letting them become his master.
Yep...i’m not on anyone’s bandwagon...Rudy-NO, Mitt-NO, McCain-NO, Fred-seems like a retread and they would be his master(still hold some hope though), Hunter-gutsy guy and i’m hopeful, but not much......Paul-well, what can you say, he keeps it interesting, i like a lot he says but he doesn’t have a chance.... I think things will have to REALLY get bad in this country before a third party is viable...JMHO....and yes i hate the thought of holding my nose...the Dole malaise turned my stomach and the coronation of Junior in 2000 woke me the hell up out of my fog....Keep up the good fight...there’s a few of us that know where you are coming from....i’m pretty Paleo so i mostly come on FR for the funny stuff these days :D
They're all worth voting for if Hillary Rodham Clinton is the alternative.
I've done gave Fred Thompson one vote and I'll never give him another one. I do not trust him in office.
Of course you don't!
I'll not vote for the two N.E. Liberals nor the Open Borders shill from Arizona. Other than that I'll see what the GOP has to offer. I can think of three Republicans currently in the POTUS race I would have no problems voting for in the general election. But I will not vote for a Republican Liberal.
What a laugh. The only Republicans you'd vote for are guys who would lose to Hillary Clinton by 20 points.
You might as well vote for her...since you're going to anyway!
Oh my goodness you had to fall back on the old party propaganda fear tactic. LOL. Tell you what. While everybody else in here was predicting W's 2000 landslide I was saying he would either barely win or loose. Why? Because I understood Al Gore politics. Not Al Gore JR but Senior. Al Gore nearly won that election and Bush did not win because of his platform. Gore lost due to scandals. Bush on the other hand told Consrtvatives to go pound sound and the ones who didn't vote third party stayed home. Bush tried to be DEM Lite in 2000 and Gore did just what his Pappy taught him by saying Me Too. It nearly cost Bush two elections.
Now as for Hillary I understand her a lot better than you think I do which is why I say the GOP better get it's act together. Run Rudy? Hillary will run to his right just as Slick Willie did Poppy Bush and Dole. The same with Mitt, McCain, and Thompson. Hillary can without breaking a sweat run to the right of John, Rudy, and Mitt.
Now as for Fred? Here's the problem Fred is not good at political confrontations. He's a genius in the Court Room and a good actor on TV but as an elected leader having to get rough with the other side? Forget it! Hillary will mop the floor with him just as John Glenn did. She won't have to run to the right of him she'll take him head on. Fred doesn't have the political skills to do it. His first term as senator was impressive but it was only a two year term. He had replaced Gore in a special election. It was his second term that was the problem. He would have faced a difficult challenge for a third term.
Fred was a legend in the state. He helped bring down a felon governor who was among other things selling pardons. Which is what made his actions in his second term so questionable. If anyone in the senate was capable of bringing down Clinton it was Fred Thompson. He had the talent and the experience in the private sector. He could not adapt his private sector talents to the senate. If the excuse the DEMs ran rough shod over him is used to excuse it then how in the world is that man going to deal with hard cores like Teddy K?
His unwillingness to go ahead and face his political opponents within the party tells me Fred hasn't changed a bit. He's waiting as long as possible so he faces opposition within the party for a short of time as possible. It isn't to save money it is so ones like Paul, Hunter, and Tancredo have limited time to debate him. I doubt he could beat Rudy in a debate myself.
The Fred is da man drive is much like the Bush is da man drive a bunch of hype and Fred can't hold up to it. The "Let the chips fall where they may" was the Fred Thompson who took down the governor. The Don't name any names" was the Fred Thompson who lacked the spine to back up his own word. The bad part of it is when Republicans figure this out it will be past the primaries.
Duncan Hunter has the skills to take on Hillary and the Conservative record to stand on as does Ron Paul. Ron Paul in a one on one debate with Hillary? That would be HER worse nightmare. The man is not an idiot he answers all questions fully asked asked of him and doesn't beat around the bush doing so. He is likely the most brilliant one running but some want to make this a beauty pageant or a high school level popularity race. I look for substance on issues and voting records as well as how they handle their personal life when I vote.
By todays GOP standards for electing POTUS Reagan would not have stood a chance as the left wing RINO's would have painted him a right wing fringe loon for that matter so would JFK if he had been GOP. Do you not realize yet how far left the GOP has gone since 1994? When Hillary Clinton can run to the right of the top four it's time to reevaluate party platform and change course. Failure to do so in the past has cost the GOP plenty.
Before you run all over this board saying that I said Hillary is more conservative that is not what I said at all. I said she can run to the right of them which is different. She can talk very conservative when the venue calls for it. Remember that her husband ran to the right of Poppy and Dole while they tried to be Dem Lites. That came does not work against the Clintons and you can take that to the bank as political fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.