Bush Tries to Dictate New Iraq Leader

His actions have inflamed the New Shiite Leaders!

Published on March 29, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics

On Saturday our Ambassador, Mr. Khalilzad delivered a personal message from President Bush to the new Shiite leaders that attempted to dictate the next chief of state in Iraq. The message from Bush according to the Shiite officials and the NYT is as follows, Mr. Bush doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept Mr. Jaafari to be the head of state in Iraq.

This message inflamed the new Shiite members of the just elected leaders. They are furious that President Bush would be attempting to dictate who will be chosen as the new Iraq leader. Bush has been critical of Jaafari even though he appears to be the choice of the majority of Iraq leaders. Who is GWB to be telling Iraq who the should or should not select to be their leader? EVERY DAY this administration shows its incompetence and distain for anything except what GWB WANTS!

Comments (Page 1)

COL Gene

on Mar 29, 2006

For all you Bush supporters that want the source of this story, here is the story:

March 29, 2006
Bush Opposes Iraq's Premier, Shiites Report
By EDWARD WONG

BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 28 — The American ambassador has told Shiite officials that President Bush does not want the Iraqi prime minister to remain the country's leader in the next government, senior Shiite politicians said Tuesday.

It is the first time the Americans have directly expressed a preference in the furious debate over the country's top job, the politicians said, and it is inflaming tensions between the Americans and some Shiite leaders.

The ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, told the head of the main Shiite political bloc at a meeting on Saturday to pass on a "personal message from President Bush" to the interim prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, said Redha Jowad Taki, a Shiite member of Parliament who was at the meeting.

Mr. Khalilzad said Mr. Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Mr. Jaafari as the next prime minister, according to Mr. Taki, a senior aide to Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shiite bloc. It was the first "clear and direct message" from the Americans on a specific candidate for prime minister, Mr. Taki said.

The Shiite bloc, which won a plurality in the parliamentary election in December, nominated Mr. Jaafari last month to retain his post for four more years.

American officials in Baghdad did not dispute the Shiite politicians' account of the conversation, though they would not discuss the details of the meeting. A spokeswoman for the American Embassy confirmed that Mr. Khalilzad met with Mr. Hakim on Saturday. But she declined to comment on what was said.

"The decisions about the choice of the prime minister are entirely up to the Iraqis," said the spokeswoman, Elizabeth Colton. "This will be an Iraqi decision."

In Washington, the State Department said it would not comment on diplomatic conversations, but Adam Ereli, the deputy spokesman, reiterated American support for "a government of national unity with strong leadership that can unify all Iraqis."

The Americans have harshly criticized the Jaafari government in recent months for supporting Shiite militias that have been fomenting sectarian violence and pushing Iraq closer to full-scale civil war.

Mr. Khalilzad has sharpened his criticism in the last week, saying the militias are now killing more people than the Sunni Arab-led insurgency. American officials have expressed growing concern that Mr. Jaafari is incapable of reining in the private armies, especially since Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric who leads the most volatile militia, is Mr. Jaafari's most powerful backer.

Haider al-Ubady, a spokesman for Mr. Jaafari, said the prime minister had received the ambassador's message and accused the Americans of trying to subvert Iraqi sovereignty.

Tensions between Shiite leaders and the American government, which had been rising for months, boiled over after an assault on Sunday night by American and Iraqi forces on a Shiite mosque compound in northern Baghdad.

Shiite leaders say at least 17 civilians were killed in the battle, most of them members of a Shiite political party. American commanders say the soldiers fought insurgents.

The reported American pressure over Mr. Jaafari's nomination is another sign of White House impatience over the deadlocked talks to form a new government. American officials say the impasse has created a power vacuum that has encouraged lawlessness and civil conflict.

The nomination has become one of the most contentious issues in those talks, with the main Kurdish, Sunni Arab and secular blocs calling for the Shiites to replace Mr. Jaafari. On Monday, Shiite leaders suspended their participation in the negotiations, saying they were enraged by the assault on the mosque complex.

In Baghdad on Tuesday, at least 21 people were abducted in four separate incidents in the biggest wave of kidnappings in a month, an Interior Ministry official said. In one incident, 15 men in Iraqi Army uniforms dragged at least six people from a money exchange shop and stole nearly $60,000. In two other cases, people wearing Interior Ministry commando uniforms snatched victims from two electronics shops.

The police in western Baghdad discovered 14 bodies on Tuesday, all killed execution-style with gunshots to the head, apparently the latest victims of sectarian bloodletting. On Monday, Iraqi forces found 18 bodies near Baquba with similar wounds. Earlier reports of 30 beheaded bodies found in that area were wrong, the Interior Ministry official said.

An American soldier was killed Tuesday by small-arms fire in Baghdad, and another was killed and three were wounded by a roadside bomb outside Habbaniya, the American military said.

The Iraqi security minister, Abdul Karim al-Enizi, said on the state-run Iraqiya network on Tuesday night that the Iraqi forces who had raided the mosque compound in Baghdad were not part of the Interior or Defense Ministry. A survivor said the soldiers did not speak Arabic well, implying they may have been Kurdish militiamen working with Americans, Mr. Enizi said.

At the Pentagon, senior officials defended the raid, releasing photographs they said proved that weapons and bomb-making materials had been seized inside the compound, which they described as a school complex that had been turned into a base for a "hostage ring."

When the soldiers entered the compound, "they found that there was a building there that had a small minaret and a prayer room inside it," said Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "Some people are calling that a mosque."

The surge in violence has shaken confidence in Mr. Jaafari, who has been widely criticized by Iraqis for failing to smash the Sunni-led insurgency, letting Shiite death squads run rampant and doing little on reconstruction.

Mr. Jaafari won the Shiite bloc's nomination for prime minister by one vote in a secret ballot of its members of Parliament, beating out the deputy of Mr. Hakim, the bloc's leader. As the largest bloc, with 130 of the 275 seats, the Shiites have the right to nominate the prime minister.

But a two-thirds vote of Parliament is required for approval of the new government. As long as the other major blocs oppose Mr. Jaafari, the process is at a standstill.

Thom Shanker and Steven R. Weisman contributed reporting from Washington for this article.

DJBandit

on Mar 29, 2006

Mr. Khalilzad said Mr. Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept"

Bush has an opinion and Col has a fit. Does it really matter what Bush says? So he doesn't like the guy, as long as Iraq does what they suppose to do, chose who they want, who cares about Bush's opinion.

Funny that you post this article when just yesterday you were complaining about Bush not imposing in Afghanistan. There is just no pleasing you is there Col?

DJBandit

on Mar 29, 2006

Mr. Khalilzad said Mr. Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept"

COL Gene

on Mar 29, 2006

The issue is the way the NEW Iraq government has reacted. This is the same group Bush must work with. Bush is an idiot !He is alienating the very group he claims we need to work with to get our troops out of the Hell Hole

Moderateman

on Mar 29, 2006

A very old oak tree, that died long ago, fell over today,smashing into an abandon leanto.. AND IT'S ALL BUSHES FAULT!!

Chaos Manager

on Mar 29, 2006

Again, COL, it all boils down to - it's perfectly all right if we meddle in Afghanistan (and dammit it's Bush's fault that we didn't!!!) and not okay if we meddle in Iraq (where we're taking a little more active role in actually assisting them in reconstruction).

Hmmm... your muliple personalities having a difference of opinion there, COL?

One of these days, they're all gonna argue amonst themselves and put you into a logic loop so twisted that you'll just shutdown completely. 3 weeks later, when we all realize that it's been really quiet, we MIGHT wonder what happened to you.

Or, someone else will get elected in 2008, and January 2009 will cause you to just wilt away 'cause Bush won't be in the White House any more ...

Anyone wanna keep this countdown? 1,028 days until the C.O.L. wilts from lack of being able to scream about Bush screw ups.

COL Gene

on Mar 29, 2006

When did I say it was OK to meddle in Afghanistan? What I said is that we should not be sending out troops to SUPPORT any country that would kill its people for the religious beliefs. What Bush is doing is trying to tell the Iraq Government who to select as their head of state. Who the Hell does Bush think he is? He supports an election in Palestine and then when they elect a faction he and the Israelites do not like, they do not want to deal with them. Everything he does in the Moslem world creates more dislike for him and this country. How does that make us safer?

Chaos Manager

on Mar 29, 2006

When did I say it was OK to meddle in Afghanistan?

When you started bitching about how Afghanistan was threatening to kill someone who DARED to change religions. When you continued to bitch about how come we let them do that? When you still bitched about them determining to use Sharia law to SUPPLEMENT their constitution and code of laws.

All of that is advocating that WE/BUSH should've done something. Yet, when Bush tries to use his influence to get a leader in Iraq that might consider working WITH us instead of against us, we shouldn't get involved.

He supports an election in Palestine and then when they elect a faction he and the Israelites do not like, they do not want to deal with them.

Okay, so now, you're ADVOCATING that we deal with terrorists because they're legitimately elected by the Palestinian people, yet continue to yell and scream about needing to interfere with the internal workings of Afghanistan because they DARE (I mean, how dare they, right? ) vote for themselves the guidance of where to look when their Constitution and Code of Laws doesn't address anything.

Make up your mind, COL. Can't have it both ways. Either we meddle in the internal workings of other countries, or we don't. Either we meddle with the electorate of a foreign country or we choose to deal with the results. Either way, we need to stay on the same side, in all cases, rather than the picking and choosing (aka waffling) that you're advocating all the time.

DJBandit

on Mar 29, 2006

What Bush is doing is trying to tell the Iraq Government who to select as their head of state.

Can you point out where exactly did Bush try to tell the Iraqi Gov't who to select? Lats I read, on your own article here, Bush gave an opinion as to not wanting, supporting or accepting Mr. Jaafari to be the head of state in Iraq. Where in that opinion does he say anything about change or "you do as I say"?

COL Gene

on Mar 30, 2006

He did not say who but he told them who he would not support which is the person the elected people want. Bush has no business saying ANYTHING as to who the people of Iraq Select as their head of state. What do you think we would think if England or Russia for example said we will not work with Bush?

bakerstreet

on Mar 30, 2006

" He did not say who but he told them who he would not support which is the person the elected people want."

That's humorous. So now you think that we HAVE to support whoever they choose, whether it be Zombie Ghandi or Hamas? No, thanks. Self-rule means they can choose who they want, and our self rule means we don't have to support anyone we don't want to support.

You have a problem with self-rule when it comes right down to it, if you ask me. You think Afghanistan can't do what they were going to do, so you call for us to stop supporting them, but if Iraq elects terrorists you say we have to support them. In the end, this is the world according to the Col, and we're wrong no matter what we do, as long as it goes against what you think.

Lee1776

on Mar 30, 2006

as long as it goes against what you think.

No, it only matters if it would be going against Bush.

Chaos Manager

on Mar 30, 2006

What do you think we would think if England or Russia for example said we will not work with Bush?

Hmmm... seems to me that there were long stretches of time where England didn't want to work with us ... Something about events in 1812 or there abouts tend to come to mind.

Also, Russia, on many occasions (including this lasted round in Iraq for PGW2) has refused to work with the US. Regardless of who the president is.

So, care to try again, COL?

COL Gene

on Mar 30, 2006

Bakerstreet

If as you say we can choose who to support and Bush will not deal with the new leader of Iraq, why should we continue to place 130,000 of our troops at risk to support a government our President rejects? How do you support a country when our leader refuses to deal with the leader of that country? How do you deal with a country when you alienate the governing body of that country by rejecting the person they want as their leader?

In 1812 we were not risking 130,000 troops to protect England. What do you think Russia would do if Bush sent the same message about not dealing with the Russian president that he sent to Iraq about their head of state?

Rightwinger

on Mar 30, 2006

What do you think Russia would do if Bush sent the same message about not dealing with the Russian president that he sent to Iraq about their head of state?

It's happened before. I seem to recall Carter doing something very similar to that when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Unless my memory is faulty, we even boycotted the 1980 Summer Olympics. One of the few times the Grinning Peanut Farmer actually took a pro-American stand on something.
That was when they still had about 20,000+ nukes aimed at us, too.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!