Talabani Remarks
Ok, I was watching a news channel the other day and they were discussing recent statements made by current president of Iraq Jalal Talabani. They showed snippets of various press conferences. In the first one he predicted that within 2 years there would no longer be a need for US forces in Iraq.
They then showed a segment of a joint press conference between Talabani and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Man, Rummy really looked uneasy with how freely the Iraqi president was talking about US troop withdrawal or reduction. Rumsfeld kept looking at him like they were actors on stage and Talabani had gone off script (I wouldn't doubt that was probably the case).
It was reported that Talabani also suggested via an interview that the current level of trained Iraqi forces could mean as many as 50,000 US troops could be sent home by the end of 2005.
I guess all this off script talking didn't sit well with the Bush Boys, because Talabani made an about face after meeting with Ole G.W. He stated that no timetable would be set for US troop withdrawal; doing so would embolden the insurgents (a statement reiterated many times before by Dubya and his flock). You could almost see the puppet strings.
You may remember a similar thing happening to then Sec of State Colin Powell not too long after 9/11. Responding to a reporter who asked if evidence alleging Bin Laden and his networks’ role in the attacks would ever be made public, Powell stated that after a thorough investigation into the incident, yes it would. Of course then, at a special Rose Garden press conference, Powell reversed course and said because the evidence is deemed classified, it would not be made public. Bush was standing right next to him and I swear I saw Dubya's lips moving.
Anyway, back to Talabani’s remarks. Now is it just me or is this something we want to hear from the Iraqi’s? That they are capable of taking over for themselves and allowing US troops to come home.
Then the obvious dawned on me. This is what the American people want, troops to come home and Iraq to be self-dictating. But it is not what the Bush administration wants. Many have made the complaint that there was no viable exit strategy for post-war Iraq. The reason for this is simple: Bush and company never intended to leave Iraq. All this talk of "fostering democracy" is one big load.
Bush and his cronies have talked about milestones in Iraq’s road to democracy.
Sovereignty. Yet another attempt to give the appearance of progress in Iraq. In a private ceremony on June 28th of 2004, limited sovereignty was bestowed to the interim Iraqi government. Of course this "government" would have no authority to enact legislation nor would they control the some 160,000 coalition troops still occupying Iraq. I guess that's what they meant by limited sovereignty.
Elections. The January 30th 2005 elections were heralded as a victory with higher then expected voter turn out. Unfortunately for the Bush administration, their hand picked government lead by Iyad Allawi, was soundly defeated by the Shiite bloc. Bush had no choice but to embrace this democratically elected government. This issue has already reared its ugly head with the new Iraqi government starting to warm up to is neighbor Iran. How ironic is it that we now have to support a government that is seeking a closer relationship with a country we once deemed as an "axis" power?
Drafting a constitution. American negotiators working to help the Kurds, Shiites and Sunni’s draft a constitution were forced to make concessions in order to meet the deadline of a US crafted interim law. Unfortunately, I have a feeling these concessions will come back to haunt us.
First, the draft constitution submitted stipulates that Iraq is an Islamic state, that Islam is a source of legislation and that no law can be enacted that contradicts the principles of Islam. The constitution also calls for a loose federation, which Sunni’s fear will result in a breakup of the country (a very real possibility given the Kurds and Shiites firm stance on their right to form their own federal states).
Opponents have also charged that the provision regarding Islamic law in Iraq would subject Iraqis to rule by religious edicts of individual clerics or sects (also possible given the power some religious leaders are able to wield and the outcome of the elections). The erosion of equal rights for women is also sited by those opposed to the draft. I guess in our zeal to remove one dictator, we may have opened the door to a far more oppressive regime.
It comes right down to this. The Bush administration wants Iraq to continue to be a hotbed of violence and debate so they can maintain reasons for our troops to remain there, all in the name of combating terrorism.
Talabani should be allowed to say whatever he wishes. Iraq is a “free” country now after all.
(Originally posted on Yahoo360)
They then showed a segment of a joint press conference between Talabani and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Man, Rummy really looked uneasy with how freely the Iraqi president was talking about US troop withdrawal or reduction. Rumsfeld kept looking at him like they were actors on stage and Talabani had gone off script (I wouldn't doubt that was probably the case).
It was reported that Talabani also suggested via an interview that the current level of trained Iraqi forces could mean as many as 50,000 US troops could be sent home by the end of 2005.
I guess all this off script talking didn't sit well with the Bush Boys, because Talabani made an about face after meeting with Ole G.W. He stated that no timetable would be set for US troop withdrawal; doing so would embolden the insurgents (a statement reiterated many times before by Dubya and his flock). You could almost see the puppet strings.
You may remember a similar thing happening to then Sec of State Colin Powell not too long after 9/11. Responding to a reporter who asked if evidence alleging Bin Laden and his networks’ role in the attacks would ever be made public, Powell stated that after a thorough investigation into the incident, yes it would. Of course then, at a special Rose Garden press conference, Powell reversed course and said because the evidence is deemed classified, it would not be made public. Bush was standing right next to him and I swear I saw Dubya's lips moving.
Anyway, back to Talabani’s remarks. Now is it just me or is this something we want to hear from the Iraqi’s? That they are capable of taking over for themselves and allowing US troops to come home.
Then the obvious dawned on me. This is what the American people want, troops to come home and Iraq to be self-dictating. But it is not what the Bush administration wants. Many have made the complaint that there was no viable exit strategy for post-war Iraq. The reason for this is simple: Bush and company never intended to leave Iraq. All this talk of "fostering democracy" is one big load.
Bush and his cronies have talked about milestones in Iraq’s road to democracy.
Sovereignty. Yet another attempt to give the appearance of progress in Iraq. In a private ceremony on June 28th of 2004, limited sovereignty was bestowed to the interim Iraqi government. Of course this "government" would have no authority to enact legislation nor would they control the some 160,000 coalition troops still occupying Iraq. I guess that's what they meant by limited sovereignty.
Elections. The January 30th 2005 elections were heralded as a victory with higher then expected voter turn out. Unfortunately for the Bush administration, their hand picked government lead by Iyad Allawi, was soundly defeated by the Shiite bloc. Bush had no choice but to embrace this democratically elected government. This issue has already reared its ugly head with the new Iraqi government starting to warm up to is neighbor Iran. How ironic is it that we now have to support a government that is seeking a closer relationship with a country we once deemed as an "axis" power?
Drafting a constitution. American negotiators working to help the Kurds, Shiites and Sunni’s draft a constitution were forced to make concessions in order to meet the deadline of a US crafted interim law. Unfortunately, I have a feeling these concessions will come back to haunt us.
First, the draft constitution submitted stipulates that Iraq is an Islamic state, that Islam is a source of legislation and that no law can be enacted that contradicts the principles of Islam. The constitution also calls for a loose federation, which Sunni’s fear will result in a breakup of the country (a very real possibility given the Kurds and Shiites firm stance on their right to form their own federal states).
Opponents have also charged that the provision regarding Islamic law in Iraq would subject Iraqis to rule by religious edicts of individual clerics or sects (also possible given the power some religious leaders are able to wield and the outcome of the elections). The erosion of equal rights for women is also sited by those opposed to the draft. I guess in our zeal to remove one dictator, we may have opened the door to a far more oppressive regime.
It comes right down to this. The Bush administration wants Iraq to continue to be a hotbed of violence and debate so they can maintain reasons for our troops to remain there, all in the name of combating terrorism.
Talabani should be allowed to say whatever he wishes. Iraq is a “free” country now after all.
(Originally posted on Yahoo360)
Post a Comment