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 2)

COL Gene

on Mar 30, 2006

It is dam stupid to have Bush tell the new government he claims is essential to create a stable government that he will does not want to deal with the person they want as their head of State. It is not hard to see why he is hated by most countries in the world. There has not been a place he has gone that there have not been major demonstrations against him. Bush is a polarizing person both in this country and thought out the world!

Daiwa

on Mar 30, 2006

It's clear now that Gene is actually a case study in untreated undifferentiated schizophrenia. Probably being conducted by a secret Pentagon disinformation working group. Maybe the same one that orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.

bakerstreet

on Mar 30, 2006

I would assume that if we didn't support Iraq, we wouldn't have troops there. Let them decide what they want, and then we'll decide if we need to take part. Bush is just letting them know what we'll tolerate. There's nothing wrong with that. No different than Afghanistan where you wanted to pull out and stop supporting them for THEIR democratic choice.

You've really betrayed your shallow inability to stick to a philosophy in the last few weeks. No matter what Bush does, you take the opposite, and you've crossed over your own stances from time to time. A shame you can't have beliefs of your own, and not rely on Bush to decide what you're going to believe on a given day.

COL Gene

on Mar 30, 2006

In Afghanistan we provide military and financial support to a government that violates the most basic values of this country. In Iraq we are in the middle of a conflict that has existed for over a 100 years and that we enabled to surface by removing the control required to keep the factions from fighting with each other. At the same time we claim that only a unity government in Iraq can prevent a civil war and our leader refuses to interact with the leader of that so called unity government in Iraq. I did not go out of my way to just oppose Bush, but to show how the policy we are following does not make sense. All you want to do is make it look like it is my dislike for Bush rather then to admit that what Bush is doing is not working. He is alienating the very people he needs to work with in Iraq. Almost every day Bush shows his inability to understand what is going on and what the majority want from their leader. He is on the wrong side of just about every issue. Border security, Trade, Budget Deficit, Jobs, Trade, Social Security, Energy, Education, Environment, Health or Iraq. I can not think of ONE major issue where Bush is in agreement with the MAJORITY of Americans. That is a bit scary!

bakerstreet

on Mar 30, 2006

You state it perfectly, Gene. We fail to impose our ideals on Afghanistan, you complain. We try to sway the opinions of the Iraqis, you claim we are imposing on them. In reality the people of both nations should do what they want, and we should decide whether to take part based upon that... just exactly what we are doing.

I don't make you look like anything, Col. I don't have to paint a picture, just point to you.

COL Gene

on Mar 30, 2006

The problem is we should NOT be taking part as you put it. We should get the hell out and let them at it so long as they leave us alone. If the don't leave us alone then we make them go away!

Chaos Manager

on Mar 31, 2006

If the don't leave us alone then we make them go away!

Gee, this sounds like sense. Now, you know why we are there.

They wouldn't leave us alone. Our airmen were there FOLLOWING THE UN DIRECTIVES, no less. Patrolling the UN sanctioned "No Fly" zone. And get shot at. So, they didn't leave us alone. Saddam paid the necessary price for that.

The rest is just clean up. Something that we have a tendancy to do. Just ask France, Germany, Japan, and countless others.

COL Gene

on Mar 31, 2006

I do not call what is going on in Iraq Clean up! We invaded a country, destroyed the government and military and are now occupiers. We do not have the resources to properly accomplish the occupation function. Our presence contributes to the unrest and when we leave the underlying issues between the factions in Iraq are not resolved and will continue to create the fighting we see day after day. It is time to get out and allow them to settle the issues among the people of Iraq. We should try and limit any impact from what takes place in Iraq to surrounding countries which may mean redeployment of some of our military for some time into the future. To continue the current policy will only postpone the inevitable at the cost of more American Lives and treasure.

DJBandit

on Mar 31, 2006

The problem is we should NOT be taking part as you put it. We should get the hell out and let them at it so long as they leave us alone. If the don't leave us alone then we make them go away!

So you finally show your true colors. What you seem to really want is to completely destroy the Middle East. That last sentence says it all, everyone knows they will not leave us alone and so obviously that is what you want so that we can just obliterate them from over here. Shame on you Col for wanting to kill everyone including innocent people just because it's easier and none of our boys will die in the process.

COL Gene

on Mar 31, 2006

If the people in a country allow their country to threaten another country, they must bear the responsibility. WE can not occupy every unfriendly country. However if they understand the consequences of attacking the United States is an end to their existence, they will think a lot more then twice before they attack us again.

stevendedalus

on Mar 31, 2006

I think 20,000 American casualties gives Bush the right to express his opinion.

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!