-MSNBC

>>>Who woulda thunk that the Iraqis wouldn't want us around for 100 years or so?

I was looking for a thread on this breaking news. So what does the forum think of the al-Maliki bombshell that chances for an agreement over the US-Iraq treaty must include a timetable for the withdrawl of US forces?

Is this really the only thread on this?

Nope, there's one other that I've seen wondering why the neo-cons aren't forcing Makili to stand down. Personally, I think if he doesn't cave, he's a dead man. Lots of accidents can happen in Baghdad.

The PNACers have their heart set on several permanent bases in Iraq.

I suppose the more likely scenario, now that I think about it, is that it won't matter. Iran will most likely be attacked before Bush leaves office. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Cheney is asked to run as VP with McCain. An attack on Iran will turn the entire region into a choatic free-for-all. Re-destabilizing Iraq and waves of assasinations of Iraqi officials. They will either ask us to stay or there will not be enough of a government left to oppose us.

Thus fulfilling Ledeen's dream of total war and Cheney's wish to destabilize the entire middle east so that Haliburton and Custer Battles can pick up the pieces for pennies. Again, Cheney has been writing about this scenario for over 35 years, and it's plainly spelled out in many PNAC letters and documents. Too bad no one reads anything longer than a half page column width anymore.

Maliki told President Bush personally, in a video teleconference on Friday, that the United States cannot use Iraqi territory to attack Iran. This is enormous news and I have been buried in work all day--I thought the forum would be buzzing on this topic.

I hope you are wrong (on a US attack on Iran), in fact, Maliki's teleconference on his insistence we cannot use Iraq for invading Iran gives some credence to your post.

I doubt McCain would choose Cheney as a running mate--more likely an advisor (he has already secured Rove).

The Iraqi's want us out and most Americans want us out--so......why are we there? Is anyone still falling for Iraq as the central "war on terror" hoax?

If "wow" is any indicator, yup, they're still out there. Silly sod refuses to accept the fact that AQ is in Pakistan.

There is one other doom and gloom scenario... Bush doesn't attack before leaving office and leaves it to Israel after Obama takes office. Same results, but BushCo are off the hook.

Of course, it is well known to all that AQ has regained a stronghold along the Afghan/Pakistan border. At least after kicking down the door in Iraq and inviting AQ in, supplementing their recruits and providing a training ground we have been able (along with the Iraqis) to repair some of our damage.

Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda - Times Online

Somewhat alarming though, that Maliki felt the pressing need to have a vis-à-vis with Bush reaffirming that the US was not allowed to use Iraq as a launching point to invade Iran. The Saudis and the Jordanians are even getting involved in this.

>>>I think the generals would stage a coup before that would happen.

So, why no calls from conservatives to depose Maliki?

I think Amazed and I covered the answer.

__________________
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

Norman Thomas

I hope so...thanks, George for starting this thread.

I guess those Iraqi politicans have figured that those billions of dollars they have stolen from our tax dollars will sustain them through any troubles that happen after the US military leaves. They have no worries