Tuesday, November 28, 2006


Sovereignty watch

George Bush was asked about meetings between leaders of Iraq and Iran, and he was at pains to remind his audience, as he does when it suits his purpose, that Iraq is a "sovereign" nation. But just yesterday, National Security Adviser Steven Hadley had this to say:
"And let me also say that there's been a lot of discussion within the American press about the need to adapt our strategy, a lot of discussion about Baker-Hamilton, a lot of discussion on talk shows, a lot in the press about ideas about the way ahead for Iraq. And it's important, I think, for the President to send the message to Prime Minister Maliki that while he is listening to all of these voices for ideas, is open to ideas, that in the end of the day to reassure Prime Minister Maliki that it is the President who will be crafting the way forward on Iraq and to reassure Prime Minister Maliki it will be done in a way that is cooperative with Iraq, rather than imposed on Iraq, so that we come out of this process with a strategy that is an Iraqi strategy and a strategy that we share and can support."
So, if Iraq is a "sovereign" nation, why is it George Bush, and not Prime Minister Maliki, who is the one "who will be crafting the way forward [Ed. note: as if!] on Iraq"? Why is everyone waiting for the charade of the Baker-Hamilton "Study Group," rather than waiting for the Iraqis to tell the U.S. what to do next? The U.S. is there at the "invitation" of the Iraqis, is it not?

And why is the idea that it would be the Iraqis to decide on the appropriate "strategy" for "victory" so preposterous that it isn't even mentioned, much less discussed?

Why stop here? There's more...

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com High Class Blogs: News and Media