That is what the WaPo headline should have read, anyway. However, the headline is thus:
Why would this Senatraitor demand such a thing? Hasn't Maliki begun to reach out to rival tribes and hasn't he tried to do the same at other times? If our own political leaders don't "have it down right" yet, why, then, do our leaders demand that the government of Iraq comply over a time frame of 5 years when we haven't "complied" with the same demands we place on Iraq in 230+ years? Why is that?
This "IS" astoundingly amazing on top of being disingenuous. All this "IS", is, yet another distraction technique being utilized by the members of the Loser Mentality. I think we should brand them all with a hot iron with the letter "L" across their Loser Foreheads.
Declaring the government of Iraq "non-functional," the influential chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said yesterday that Iraq's parliament should oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his cabinet if they are unable to forge a political compromise with rival factions in a matter of days.
"I hope the parliament will vote the Maliki government out of office and will have the wisdom to replace it with a less sectarian and more unifying prime minister and government," Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said after a three-day trip to Iraq and Jordan.
Ever since other Democrats have come back with positive reports of progress in Iraq, we now have this sole loser coming back with negative reports. Amazing, "IS"n't it?
What the Senatraitor doesn't allude to "IS" that our OWN government is also "non-functional". Does this mean that our CONgress Critters step down and make room for people that care about their country first and NOT their sad life-long ambitions of power and control? Why do they fight the subject of term limits for our CONgress Critters? Why "IS" that?
If Iraq's government is so dysfunctional, why do the people of Iraq want it to continue on and do the best they can do under the circumstances presented day after day? How long did it take the United States to get on their feet? How many Presidents did we really have before President Washington was declared the Father of the country? Do not our CONgress Critters know our own history? Apparently not.
To add insult to injury, here we have France doing a 180-degree turn while the Socialists in our CONgress maintain their defeatist rhetoric.
August 21, 2007 -- ONE key promise that Nicolas Sarkozy had made during his presidential election campaign last spring was to "correct foreign-policy mistakes" made by his predecessor Jacques Chirac.
Chief among these was Chirac's desperate efforts to prevent Iraq's liberation from Saddam Hussein's regime of terror. Chirac failed to save his friend's regime but managed to sour relations with the United States, Great Britain and more than 40 other democracies that joined the Coalition of the Willing to liberate Iraq in 2003.
Sarkozy's moves to correct the mistake started before his election, when he met President Bush at the White House in 2006 and described Chirac's policy as "arrogant."
The surprise visit paid to Iraq by France's new foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, this week is another move by Sarkozy to shed Chirac's legacy. No better man than Kouchner could have been chosen to signal France's change of policy. For Kouchner is one of a handful of people in the West who recognized the murderous nature of Saddam's regime and called for its overthrow as early as the 1980s.
In fact, Kouchner, a medical doctor by training, partly made his public image by helping the hundreds of thousands of Kurdish refugees who fled from Saddam's tyranny in the 1970s and the 1990s.
For years, Medecins sans Frontiers, the organization that Kouchner and his friends founded, was one of the few Western charities that publicized the sufferings of the Iraqi peoples.
As a result, when he arrived in Baghdad the other day, Kouchner was among friends. He also had an opportunity to lay a wreath at a monument to one of his oldest friends, Sergio Vieira de Mello, the United Nations' first emissary to Iraq, who was murdered by al Qaeda almost exactly four years ago.
What's up Levin? The Loser Mentality ain't workin' for ya?
Levin cannot have it both ways. He is either FOR Victory In Iraq or he "IS" AGAINST Victory In Iraq. Which "IS" it, Levin? What will it be? Win or Lose?
Sens. Warner and Levin Travel to Iraq, Praise Surge Results
"We have seen indications that the surge of additional brigades to Baghdad and its immediate vicinity and the revitalized counter-insurgency strategy being employed have produced tangible results in making several areas of the capital more secure. We are also encouraged by continuing positive results — in al-Anbar Province, from the recent decisions of some of the Sunni tribes to turn against Al Qaeda and cooperate with coalition force efforts to kill or capture its adherents," the two said in a statement issued after leaving the country.
I really do wish these cretins would make up their minds. Hillary has stated in public that the "Surge" is indeed working but it "IS" years too late. What an idiot and I wish Czarina would make up her mind as well. Then, she wouldn't come across as appearing to be a total dunce.
And, from
Slate: Blame Maliki...
The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal's world-wide newsbox lead with the growing number of influential voices that are calling for a change of leadership in Iraq. The WP focuses on Sen. Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who said Maliki and his cabinet should be ousted from power for his failure to reach the necessary political compromises. The WSJ mentions the Washington angle but focuses on how an increasing number of senior U.S. military commanders in Iraq also believe that progress will only be achieved if Maliki leaves office.
Some people's kids.
Catch the buzz...IBD Editorials agrees with MOI?? COOL BEANS!!
Sen. Step-In-It (LOL!!!) Poor Levin. Such a troll and he doesn't even know it yet.
"I hope the parliament will vote the Maliki government out of office and will have the wisdom to replace it with a less sectarian and more unifying prime minister and government," Levin said after three days in Iraq and Jordan with the armed services panel's ranking Republican, Sen. John Warner.
First, consider how much arrogance it takes to tell a fledgling democracy who should — and shouldn't — lead it.
Second, there's the destabilizing effect that Iraq would suffer if the admittedly flawed Nouri al-Maliki were ousted. Rival Shiite leaders in the United Iraq Alliance parliamentary coalition are less independent of Iran than al-Maliki — a troubling fact.
Even the Senate's second-ranking Democrat, Richard Durbin of Illinois, admits that a perceived U.S.-orchestrated replacement of al-Maliki could be a "kiss of death" for the whole region.
Click and read the rest. It won't disappoint.
