The other ineffective, incapable, and uninformed leader

The first hint that the Bush gang was prepared to throw Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki under the bus came in September, when senior administration officials leaked word to the New York Times that they’re no longer confident that Maliki has what it takes to hold the country together. Patience, the NYT reported, is “wearing thin.”

A week later, U.S. officials were still getting the word out, with the administration leaking word that senior U.S. military commanders are questioning whether Maliki has the political will to weed out official corruption and tackle the militias.

When the White House leaks damaging memos to the NYT, you know subtleties have gone out the window.

A classified memorandum by President Bush’s national security adviser expressed serious doubts about whether Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki had the capacity to control the sectarian violence in Iraq and recommended that the United States take new steps to strengthen the Iraqi leader’s position.

The Nov. 8 memo was prepared for Mr. Bush and his top deputies by Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, and senior aides on the staff of the National Security Council after a trip by Mr. Hadley to Baghdad.

The memo suggests that if Mr. Maliki fails to carry out a series of specified steps, it may ultimately be necessary to press him to reconfigure his parliamentary bloc, a step the United States could support by providing “monetary support to moderate groups,” and by sending thousands of additional American troops to Baghdad to make up for what the document suggests is a current shortage of Iraqi forces.

In fact, the list of complaints about Maliki sounds vaguely familiar.

“His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitive reporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the Shia hierarchy and force positive change,” the memo said of the Iraqi leader. “But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action.”

In other words, as Paul Glastris put it, Bush’s NSA sees Maliki as “a wartime leader who speaks obvious untruths, surrounds himself with a narrow group of party ideologues who skew the information that gets to him, puts too few boots on the ground, fails to engage the international community, and may now be at the mercy of violent events beyond his control.”

Remind me, who else might that describe?

In any event, these fairly serious concerns about Maliki’s abilities haven’t exactly put him in jeopardy of losing his job, at least as far as the administration is concerned. The NYT noted that there is “nothing in the memo that suggests the Bush administration is interested in replacing Mr. Maliki as prime minister.”

It’s probably because the Bush gang realizes that no matter who sits in the prime minister’s chair, Iraq will unravel anyway.

Ancient Mesopotamian proverb: “The Bush you sow is the Bush you reap”.

The solution is simple by the way. Apologize to the world, decommission the “preemptive unlateral war” policy, and get out of Iraq. It would be a moral victory.

  • Yes, Mr. Bush and his “advisers” owe the world an apology. Otherwise, the bus will be running over more and more scapegoats for his failed leadership. When will it stop? -Kevo

  • The NYT noted that there is “nothing in the memo that suggests the Bush administration is interested in replacing Mr. Maliki as prime minister.”

    They can’t replace Maliki without first developing a shiny new talking point. They are down to one positive talking point as it is – the purple finger, and ditching Maliki would also ditch that.
    I’m sure they’d love to roll out a new talking point, just as I’m sure they’re working overtime to produce one. But, they have nothing to work with, so they’re stuck with Maliki and the purple fingers.

  • al-Maliki didn’t have a chance to put Iraq back together unless the Bushbots found a way to revoke the Laws of Thermodynamics regarding Entropy.

    Jeez, the way the Bush Admin and their right wing bozo loudmouth troop are screaming about folks, it seems to me that we (liberals, voters, nonbelievers, foreigners, non whites, voters, media, “deviant” sexualists” and so on and so forth) are all Jews to them (as in scapegoats the lugnuts of Germany of 1920 blamed before a certain rectangular moustashioed fellow and his band of morons took over.)

    What happened to personal responsibility? I guess it only applies to everyone else but these shitbags.

  • Throwing Maliki under the bus might give Americans the idea that they could throw Herr Bush under the bus—and we couldn’t have THAT now, could we? Especially now that we know Cheney’s leash is firmly held by the House of Saud.

    Hey, CB DId mention the Glastris comment about “a wartime leader who… may now be at the mercy of violent events beyond his control.”

    Are there “violent events in America beyond Bush’s control?” Lemme get the popcorn wagon ready….

  • Bush – 10/6/03 – “As members of the press corps here know, I have, at times, complained about leaks of security information, whether the leaks be in the legislative branch or in the executive branch, and I take those leaks very seriously.”

    Gee, I wonder what effect public disclosure of a classified negative assessment of the capabilities of one of our main allies in a war will have on our national security?

  • I guess you get to fight civil wars with the leaders you get, not the ones you wish you had.

    It’s gotta chap Bush’s ass now that Maliki is playing footsie with the closest member of “the axis of evil”. But since dipshitboy didn’t even know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites until right before the war started, it’s not a big surprise that he didn’t realize that a democracy in a predominantly Shia Iraq (or any semblance of a democracy) would result in a big win for Iran.

    I guess being really stupid has its limitations, except in American politics.

  • “They can’t replace Maliki without first developing a shiny new talking point. They are down to one positive talking point as it is – the purple finger, and ditching Maliki would also ditch that.” – JoeW

    Not true. Iraq is a parlimantary democracy. If al Maliki loses enough support there would be a new government in Iraq anyway.

    The question is, is it possible to create one out of the warring factions that are Iraq.

    It’s simply amazing to extent that the Bushites will go to avoid taking the blame for their own failures. And it’s amazing how they scream insanities about “troops coming home with honor” when it will be they who attack and scapegoat the troops for “failing to win” Boy George II’s war. We already had one (ex-)Senator blaming the Generals. You can bet if we lose control of Iraq’s oil the Texas Oil Mafia won’t be forgiving the troops anytime soon.

  • “…and by sending thousands of additional American troops to Baghdad to make up for what the document suggests is a current shortage of Iraqi forces.”

    Meaning they are going to have to abandon another province, probably Anbar, in order to provide the necessary force.

    Once again, the Whack-a-Mole strategy at its finest.

  • What’s so funny about this is that it may not matter–the Iraqis will take replacing Al-Maliki into their own hands at some point. If Bush sacks him, Maliki should be grateful because he may yet live. (And then he should ask for a nice house and stipend–somewhere in Montana).

  • “Not true. Iraq is a parlimantary democracy. If al Maliki loses enough support there would be a new government in Iraq anyway.” – Lance

    I agree with this, if the change is driven internally. But if the change is driven by the Bush regime’s flailing for a scapegoat, it’s a completely different animal.

  • I’m now taking bets on who will emerge as the next Saddam-like strongman to finally take over what’s left of Iraq. That will be the inevitable result of the chaos descending on that poor country. It might not happen overnight but eventually it will. Trust me. It will.

    Whoever it is will probably be a client of either Iran or Syria. None of the militia leaders has the clout to run a government without serious bracing from the real professionals. Time will tell.

  • “I agree with this, if the change is driven internally. But if the change is driven by the Bush regime’s flailing for a scapegoat, it’s a completely different animal. ” – JoeW

    Well, since just meeting with Boy George II is grounds enough for Sadr to pull his support for al-Maliki, which will lead to the collapse of the government, there is no need to go to the scapegoat stage. Just insisting that the leader of government in the country we are propping up should act like a real ally is going to be enough to do the guy in.

  • So, we’re going to assist Maliki by providing “monetary support to moderate groups?” Won’t the presence of these bribes further anger the various Iraqi sects and point the finger at these moderate groups as American stooges paid off by Bush? Throwing money at the problem isn’t going to solve it. But again, Bush sees it as being so easy to throw away other people’s money and other people’s lives to fix his FUBARs.

  • Comments are closed.