Huckabee “Enslaved” in a Failing Campaign

Just months after Bush told the American people that he believed America was too dependant on oil from the Middle East, Mike Huckabee has decided to re-phrase it to say we are “enslaved” to Saudi Arabia.

Huckabee; who is barely pro-American when it comes to illegals here in the states wants to break all ties with Saudi Arabia because of a recent court case where a Saudi woman/rape victim was ordered a lashing because she herself violated strict Islamic law by socializing with a group of men that were not her relatives.

She was raped by seven men, all men were sentenced to years in prison, but in Saudi Arabia apparently they stick to the laws that everyone is aware of that resides in the country, even if they are broken by someone who was victimized by others who were punished as well.

We can philosophically argue if it is right or wrong.  Of course in the United States, women are free.  Saudi Arabia and other countries don’t operate that way.  I can accept that because finally all the Democratic and flawed-Republican flapping about America’s unwelcomed intervention rings true in this case.  Who are we to tell Saudi Arabia how to run their country?  Are they threatening American women as well?

As it stands, Saudi Arabia maintains a peaceful relationship with the United States.  In the case of Iraq and Iran, we take stands for two reasons:

1.) To establish a civilized foothold to counter the incivilized foothold owned by Islamic fanatics in the Middle East which was handed to them by Jimmy Carter.

2.) To protect ourselves and our allies from bomb-making extremists.

That’s it!

Now, Huckabee comes and proclaims he would have us totally independent from Saudi’s oil in 10 years? 

As if his opinion is any different from any mentioned already on this matter.  Yes, we rely on the Middle East for oil, so what?  We need oil, he needs oil, Al Gore needs oil, Hollywood celebrities need oil!  Who doesn’t?  Will Mike Huckabee stop fueling the jet that moves him from city-to-city during his campaign?

I’d be more interested in how Huckabee plans to reverse his insane views on immigration and domestic policies to make sure things like this don’t happen to American women.  Suddenly, because a Supreme Court in Saudi Arabia orders a lashing for someone who knowingly broke laws on the books of her country, Huckabee wants to denounce an ally and regurgitate an overall concept already acknowleged by Republicans and portray it as if it’s a product of originality.

The Turkish End-Around

My posts on foreign matters don’t usually seem to invite many comments.  But this one should invoke a lot of serious thought – not only about our foreign policy but also about the people we elect to Congress.  If you don’t like profanity, I’d suggest you stop reading here.  I’m mad as hell, and I’m going to let you know about it.

Democrats in Congress are prepared to approve a resolution condemning the mass killings of Armenians by the Turks – A CENTURY AGO!!!  Dear God.  I love history, but I don’t know all the facts about the Ottoman Turk actions against Armenians in the WWI era.  What I do know is this – IT WAS 100 YEARS AGO.  What the hell???

Read this……

 Our Secretary of State has been relegated to apologizing to our ally, Turkey, for a potential resolution in Congress regarding something that happened 100 YEARS AGO!!!  Instead of dealing with more important matters like social security, taxes, crime or education – this failure of a Congress (led by Democrats) is intent on antagonizing a strategic ally of the US to the point that they have recalled their ambassador.

Our supplies to Iraq are routed through Turkey.  An overwhelming percentage of all the weapons, food, fuel, etc. destined for our troops in Iraq make their way through Turkey.  I have a hard time believing that this is anything less than an attempt by Dems to strain relations with Turkey in order to undermine our mission in Iraq.  Similar resolutions in past years were passed before this.  Why are they choosing NOW to repeat this crap? This is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Democrats have no conscience.  Where was their outrage over the torture chambers and killing that existed under Sadaam Hussein?  They’re suddenly outraged at an event that happened 100 YEARS AGO? Everything that these numbskulls do is politically calculated BS.  They don’t have the backbone to show their faces and cut off funding for the war in Iraq.  So they take a back door and threaten to approve a pathetically meaningless resolution that embarrasses a key ally of the US.

People – wake the hell up!  The Dem leadership in Congress is doing everything in their power to hurt this nation.  They claim, out of one side of their mouth, to want to improve our image abroad.  Then they go and pull this shit to make us look like idots.  To put things into perspective, France’s parliament passed a similar resolution condemning Turkey.  Do you want to be associated on that level???

This resolution passed the committe by a vote of 27-21.  The Bush administration has been hard at work lobbying against the measure.  If the House approves this measure in a floor vote, then you can be sure that Turkey will cut us off.  They will severe the supply routes to Iraq.  They will take actions that hurt our troops.  They will launch an attack into northern Iraq to quell the Kurds.  They will destabilize the only region of Iraq that has been consistently quiet.

If you don’t believe that this Dem move is coldly calculated – you are living in an alternate universe.  These assholes know exactly what they are doing.  To all of you Republicans who voted these idiots into office with your protest votes or abstentions – how is this working out for you?  How does it feel?

The 2008 elections are a war.  Everyday that I watch these Dem dipshits in Congress, I am more motivated.  This one just takes the cake.

Just Remember Everyone, Europe Hates Us!


While most liberals continue to bathe in the myth that European countries hate us for fighting terrorism, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour (pictured above) is growing concerned of increased prejudice and bigotry in regard to Muslims which she claims is common in Europe.

I wonder if it’s because countries in Europe; being a little closer to it all than we are, caught on to their game in time to start exercising attack-preventatives.  Apparently, with this new development, Europe would have no problem with the USA completing its mission in the Middle East, right?

While liberals whine about the Patriot Act, I don’t recall anyone from the UN concerned about prejudice against Muslims here in the U.S. 

If the Muslims wanted to be prejudged less by Europe, perhaps they should join the fight against the ones making them look bad.  We keep hearing how the peaceful Muslims outnumber the violent extremists but when are we going to see them rise up to fight so that others don’t have to right now?

It seems to me Muslims have a choice.  They just don’t seem to be making the right one.

Democrat Disgrace

Sorry I’ve been out of action for a bit, but I’m back – and I’m mad as hell.  The congressional hearings on Iraq featuring the report by Ambassdor Crocker and General Petraeus has turned into a circus of clowns.  Democrats, especially those seeking the 2008 presidential nod, have displayed their duplicity, deceitfulness, arrogance and ignorance throughout the hearings thus far. 

Considering that the Senate confirmed Petraeus unanimously, I fail to understand what the issue is.  Now those same Democrats who lauded Petraeus as an intelligent, honorable, qualified leader are here to slander him.  Why?  Because he brings them a message that they don’t want to hear – namely, that the surge is working in Iraq.  Here are a few of their comments and some associated articles.

 Hillary Clinton

Hillary gets into the game.  The last person on the face of the planet who should question anybody’s credibility is this despicable “human being.”  Rudy seized the day by pointing out her “venom.”  Here is what Her Highness said to the General:

“Despite what I view is your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today,” said Clinton, “I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief.”

For anybody to believe anything that Hillary says requires a major suspension of belief.

John Kerry

Kerry got in on the action too and questioned the General’s credibility in the press before Petraeus even delivered his assessment.

“I think the general will present the facts with respect to the statistics and the tactical successes or situations as he sees them,” Kerry said. “But none of us should be fooled _ not the American people, not you in the media, not us in Congress _ we should not be fooled into this tactical success debate.”

He doesn’t want to debate tactical successes?  Why are you even there, Senator?  What is the point?  Isn’t tactical success, as you term it, a major factor in winning the war?  What a dope.

Tom Lantos

The California Representative took his turn at calling the administration liars and implying that Crocker and Petraeus were there to deliver the administration’s message.

Well, General Petraeus, you saw it coming.  Those unguarded ammo dumps became the arsenals of insurgency. Those weapons have been turned against us.  How very typical of this war. The Administration’s myopic policies in Iraq have created a fiasco.  Is it any wonder that on the subject of Iraq, more and more Americans have little confidence in this Administration?  We can not take ANY of this Administration’s assertions on Iraq at face value anymore, and no amount of charts or statistics will improve its credibility. This is not a knock on you, General Petraeus, or on you, Ambassador Crocker.  But the fact remains, gentlemen, that the Administration has sent you here today to convince the members of these two Committees and the Congress that victory is at hand.  With all due respect to you, I must say … I don’t buy it.

We don’t care what you buy, Mr. Lantos.  You were openly stating in the press (weeks before this hearing) that you were closing your mind to the General’s report without even considering the testimony.  You are even more indication of the arrogance that pervades your side of the aisle in regards to this and almost any other issue.

Robert Wexler

Perhaps the biggest joke in the House is Rep. Wexler from Florida.  This two-faced slimeball managed to call the General a liar and a patriot in the same sentence.

With all respect General, among unbiased nonpartisan expert consensus is far. The surge has failed based on most parameters. In truth, war related deaths have doubled in Iraq in 2007 compared to last year. Tragically, it is my understanding that seven more American troops have died while we’ve been talking today. Cherry picking statistics or selectively massaging information will not change the basic truth.And please understand Gen. P., I do not question your credibility. You are a true patriot. I admire your service to our nation, but I do question your facts……….I am skeptical General, more importantly the American people are skeptical because four years ago very credible people while in uniform and not in uniform came before this Congress and sold us a bill of goods that turned out to be false. And that’s why we went to war based on false pretense to begin with.This testimony today is eerily similar to the testimony the American people heard on April twenty eighth nineteen sixty seven from General William Westmoreland, when he told the American people–America was making progress in Vietnam.

Right, Congressman.  You know the facts better than our commanders.  You have all the answers.  And you have a real gift for trying to make someone feel good about themselves while spitting in their face.  What a miserable human being.

And it just gets worse folks.  If anything, the Dems have used these hearings to make fools of themselves.  The tone may become decidedly more civil over the next few days after the outrage that came from their first day of bashing an honorable, decorated General.  They’ll just have to count on to pick up their slack further.  Or maybe they can sneak more Code Pink protestors into the hearings.

What has happened here is reprehensible.  Regardless of how the Democrats feel about the war, their bellicose and personal tone is unwarranted.  The real tragedy here, though, is that their opposition to the war is not a principled matter of disagreement.  It is a matter of political expediency.  They are kowtowing to their leftist fringe base and attempting to score some political points against an administration that they have always detested.

Don’t look for things to get much better, and don’t look to this circus to answer questions.  The Dems were decided before they ever walked into the chambers.  They knew what their leftist masters expected, and they will deliver – one way or another.  It doesn’t matter if the surge is working or not.  As they have clearly shown – the facts are irrelevant.

A “Nudge” for Duncan Hunter…


In re-living the Texas straw poll earlier this week, a great article followed up.

In this same straw poll, is should be noted that John McCain won only eight votes out of 1,300.

“U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter of California won the poll, easily besting former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who had many supporters at the gathering but whose bring-the-troops-home message did not thrill the voters, who were delegates to past state or national GOP conventions.

Most candidates blew off the poll. But Hunter, a Vietnam veteran, stumped Texas leading into it and hammered his commitment to the Iraq war, his belief in fair trade and his advocacy for a fence on the Mexico border.”

I am a bit ticked off at Fox News for not making this a bigger story.  As I type this, they are discussing Fred Thompson.  I do like Fred, but Hunter appeals to me a bit more for the following reasons:

  • He built the fence beween San Diego and Mexico.
  • He’s a true Vietnam Veteran.
  • He is promising committment to completing the Iraq war the right way (victory!)
  • His son is in Iraq right now.
  • The people of Texas in a poll selected him over Fred Thompson.  Not to be a suck-up to Philip and Jennifer here, but I do not think there is a better representation of America’s heartland than Texas.
  • It was fun to watch Ron Paul stomped out by both Duncan and Fred.

One more thing to consider.  Fred Thompson is a Tennessee Senator.  What does that mean?  It means he had to be the minimum amount of conservative that he had to be to get elected there (a very red state).  Hunter on the other hand has won elections in the very blue land of San Diego consistently getting 70% of the registered Democratic vote as well as 60% of the hispanic vote.

By the way, he kept the support of hispanics after building the fence.  Which I think is a great representation of what hispanic-Americans REALLY think about illegal immigration.

We have about 120 days until the Iowa caucus.  I am begging you folks to at least check out all you can on Duncan Hunter.

Bob Shrum: The Master of Clintonisms Exposes the Biggest Liberal Lie on Iraq


On September 2, 2007’s Meet The Press, Bob Shrum, Mary Matalin, James Carville, and Michael Murphy sat at the “round table” and discussed many current issues.

When the subject of Iraq came up, Mary Matalin began by pointing out how many of the “benchmarks” in Iraq were set up for failure.  She then (as Duncan Hunter did in last night’s debate) began to point out many successes in recent months. 

Bob Shrum immediately started throwing in his usual liberal talking points that intentionally mislead Americans.  I’m sick of the left’s incomplete statements regarding Iraq, but then again, full thoughts have never been part of their usual dialogue.

What astonishes me is how many keep missing it…

Here was part of the exchange that caught my eye and I have put the portion of Shrum’s comments in bold that immediately got my attention:

MS. MATALIN:  Yes, because what we’re seeing for the first time last week, is a majority of people now support and believe that the war can be won.  This leaked negative aspect of the GAO report, which in no way measured the progress on the things that really matter:  Are the Iraqis making a difference?  Did not report on the Sunni split thing, did not report on the provincial progress, did not report on the political reconciliation, did not report on the religious reconciliation.  It does not comport with the critics of the president who say progress is being made, including front-runners Hillary Rodham Clinton and, and Barack Obama.  So people are very nuanced about this.  They understand not only that it can be won, but that it must be one.  They understand the consequences of defeat.  Further, two thirds of them trust—and nobody more than the generals—when Petraeus and Crocker come and give their report, that will be the positive time.

MR. SHRUM:  I hope, I hope the Republican hires you to make that argument in November of 2008.

MS. MATALIN:  I’ll make that happily.

MR. SHRUM:  Because let me tell, let me tell you something, this Petraeus report is going to be the eighth, ninth or 10th iteration of mission semi-accomplished.  It’s going to be the same thing General Westmoreland did just before the Tet Offensive when he came back and said there was light at the end of the tunnel.  We are bogged down in a civil war in Iraq, the country wants to get out.  I think you should run a Republican candidate who says, “Let’s stay indefinitely.”

MS. MATALIN:  Hillary doesn’t think that.  Obama doesn’t think that.

MR. SHRUM:  No, Hillary says we need to get out—wait a minute!

MS. MATALIN:  Baird doesn’t think that.

MR. SHRUM:  No, no, Hillary says we need to get out—wait a minute.  Hillary says we ought to get out of Iraq.

MR. MURPHY:  No, she doesn’t.

MR. SHRUM:  She ways we ought to get out of Iraq.

MS. MATALIN:  These benchmarks were designed to produce a negative report. They do not measure progress, and they measure apples and oranges.  The congressionally mandated progress report for the president is to show progress and the, and the GAO is to show completion.  So if an element of the benchmark has three parts to it and they’ve completed two, the president says they’ve made progress, and the GAO says “No, they’ve not made any progress whatsoever,” despite the fact that they’ve completed two thirds of what it requires to do that benchmark.  It’s all—this is all—and people know this out there.

MR. SHRUM:  No, they don’t.  No, they don’t.

MS. MATALIN:  They are sick of it.

MR. SHRUM:  No, they don’t.

MS. MATALIN:  Yes, they do.

MR. SHRUM:  No, they don’t.  They want us to withdraw from Iraq.  This is…


MR. SHRUM:  …the relentless rhetoric of redemption that started after mission accomplished turned out not to be true.

MS. MATALIN:  No.  Even twenty…

MR. SHRUM:  And General Petraeus…

MS. MATALIN:  Bob, read your own polls.

MR. SHRUM:  …may be an excellent general, but we all know—we all know the administration’s going to put tremendous pressure…

MS. MATALIN:  There…

MR. SHRUM:  …on him.  He’s going to come in there and the odds are overwhelming he’s going to say, “The surge is working.  I need more time.” And James is right.  They’re talking about having to be there for nine or 10 years.

MS. MATALIN:  They’re talking about a presence…

MR. SHRUM:  This country is not going to vote for a president—Petraeus has said nine or 10 years.  Country is not going to vote for a president who’s going to keep us there for nine or 10 years.

MS. MATALIN:  I—you keep talking like this, because even, even…

MR. SHRUM:  I will, Mary, I promise you.

MS. MATALIN:  …there’s only 25 percent of the Democrats think that…

MR. SHRUM:  I will.

MS. MATALIN:  …we should immediately withdraw.

MR. SHRUM:  I didn’t say immediately withdraw.

MS. MATALIN:  We have, but we have…

MR. SHRUM:  That’s another, now that’s another, now that’s a perfect Cheneyism.

MS. MATALIN:  We have presence, we have troop presence in the world.

MR. SHRUM:  I didn’t say immediately withdraw.  I just said they thought we should withdraw.

It is Bob Shrum’s fault in the earlier part of that exchange (along with every other liberal that mis-leads) when he makes idiotic proclamations like “Hillary wants us out” or when they say that the “majority” of the American people want “out of Iraq!”

You know what, OF COURSE the majority of Americans want out of Iraq.  I want our troops home, everybody does!  But if Democrats would actually finish their broad statements by telling us exactly when that should be, perhaps they could finally thrash their way to a coherent position.  Should it be after we win, Mr. Shrum?  Should we leave now?  Should we leave after five benchmarks are met or 20?

Could one liberal finish that statement?

The entire message from Democrats (since five minutes before we went in) is that they want out but they never leave us with details of how we should leave or what condition Iraq should be in.  They purposely set people like Mary Matalin up by making these idiotic, half-baked statements as an example of their “eye on the issues” when they exude as every liberal candidate does now and as Bob Shrum did in this interview the very same thing we have known forever — they have no plan!

Whenever you are in a debate with a liberal that says “the majority of Americans want out of Iraq,” just make sure you force them to finish the thought and actually make a point that will help America.

Ron Paul Clearly the Night’s Loser…Hunter Breaks New Ground

hunter.jpg(Duncan Hunter

After the debate tonight, hopefully Ron Paul will get the message and switch the party name after his own.  He is clearly not in line with Republicans or the Republican base. 

He aligns himself with us by opposing Roe vs. Wade and calling it a massive mistake.

He aligns himself with us by supporting strong border patrol.

But he trashes us and utterly embarrasses us on National Security.  He is clearly appealing to the anti-war nuts and using the same talking points we hear from people like Rosie O’Donnell.  Here are a few snippets from what he had to say:

The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They’ve been wrong on everything they’ve said. Why not ask the people — (interrupted by cheers) — why not ask the people who advise not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit.” 

“We should not go to war — (cheers, applause) — we should not go to war without a declaration.”

“We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.”

“I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this.”

“The American people didn’t go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservative hijacked our foreign policy.”

“We’re losing elections and we’re going down next year if we don’t change it.”

I’m not quite sure who said it was going to be a “cakewalk.”  (Lie #1) Since all the liberal and Ron Paul-like types were carping about casualties during a war, Republicans have appropriately responded by politely reminding them what happens in a war.  The enemies are afraid and they shoot back.   We have also pointed out how incredibly difficult this war is compared to others because we indeed are not fighting ONE MAN or ONE COUNTRY, we are fighting an entire ideology and trying to get a strong foothold in the center of it all in Iraq to continue to minimize it.  Nobody has called it a “cakewalk.”

(Lie #2) Next he lies again (pointed out by Duncan Hunter and quoted below) when he says that the “war has not gone well one bit.”  Aside from Hunter’s list of accomplishments, Paul fails to mention ridding the world of Saddam, his lunatic sons, watching Iraq participate in three major acts of Democracy, and killing/capturing hundreds of thousands of terrorists and insurgents.

(Lie#3) He claims we did not go to war without declaration.  Paul also denounces the idea of war in Afghanistan (the one even liberals pretend to support).  Wasn’t 9/11 a hint?  Wasn’t Saddam making a purposed bluff to the U.N. about WMD after 9/11 a hint?  Pretending that 9/11 was not a declaration of war or a hint that this very sick part of the world was out of control with hateful fanaticism leads me to believe that indeed Ron Paul MUST be purposely trying to appeal to the 9/11 conspiracy nuts.  After all, if 9/11 was not a declaration of war by our enemies, it must have been something orchestrated by the Government, right?

(Lie#4) He then declares that he is less safe and that every American is less safe.  The fact that we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 or that no major American interest has been attacked overseas (the longest span between attacks since they all began in 1979) directly disagrees with him.  I’m a American, could we please leave the lying to what the American people really feel to the Democrats, Dr. Paul?

(Lie#5) He then says that neo-conservatives hijacked foreign policy.  I wonder if he would characterize FDR as a neo-conservative?

The brilliant Duncan Hunter stated in response:

” first, let’s remember that we’ve got troops — those 157,000 folks in Iraq, lots of them in Afghanistan are watching us tonight, and let me just tell you what they’ve done.

In Anbar province, we were having 1,350 attacks a month last October. By the blood, sweat and tears of the U.S. Marines out there, we’ve pulled it down 80 percent. They’ve pulled down civilian casualties 74 percent. (Applause.) And I — I shouldn’t let this one go, because the Democrats made an entire debate in never complementing what the troops have done. This is how we do it.

We’ve got 129 battalions in the Iraqi army that we’re training up. We’re training them up, we are getting them into the fight. When those Iraqi battalions are battle-hardened and they start to rotate into the positions on the battlefield, displacing American forces, the American forces can then rotate out, come back to the U.S. or go to other places in Central Command.

That’s the right way to win; it’s called victory. That’s how we leave Iraq. (Cheers, applause.)”

“let me tell you, right now we’ve seen an 80 percent depression in the attacks in Anbar province, those tough towns of Fallujah and Ramadi — which were incidentally the toughest, most difficult towns, where gun battles were being waged daily. We’ve now knocked that down 80 percent. And my answer is, if you think we’re going to be there for a long time, you don’t understand the determination of the U.S. Marines and the U.S. Army. (Cheers, applause.) We’re going to turn it over.”

I am sad we haven’t paid more attention to Duncan Hunter.  I am also sorry Fred Thompson did not make this debate.  Duncan Hunter is an excellent candidate and in fact did win a GOP straw poll in Texas (Ron Paul’s state).  Hunter received 534 votes and Thompson came in second with 266 votes.  Ron Paul came in third.  But we can see early on in majority how much of an embarrassment Ron Paul is in his own state. 

I’m sorry to all my Fred supporters (like my brilliant site partner) but until Fred comes out on these issues with more zeal, my support is now focused on Duncan Hunter.

Aside from reading Paul’s quotes above, Hunter was the guy tonight who finally articulated the fraud that lies within Ron Paul and his lunatic supporters.  Ron Paul does not represent the Republican Party.  He is dangerous to our security and continues to holler out the same talking points we could have heard a year ago on the The View when Rosie was on.

Anti-Bush or Anti-War?


President Bush announced the success in the Anbar Providence in Iraq.   It was also the first time he truly mentioned withdrawing troops showing his desire to get this over with and to get them home.  He stated that when and only when the success is matched across Iraq is when we can start withdrawing troops.  Well, I have no problem with that!  As with anyone else, I want our troops home and safe.

But the question is, what are Ron Paul supporters and liberals going to say about this?  Will they finally acknowledge just a little support while respectively holding onto their anti-war stance?

Or will they politicize the President’s remarks to campaign for 2008 while disrespectively clutching onto their Anti-Bush stance?

We got a small hint from Jim Manley, spokesperson for Harry Reid:

“Despite this massive P.R. operation, the American people are still demanding a new strategy” 

Yep…that’s what I thought they’d say.

Can you imagine the cringe factor within the Democratic party if their leader or his spokespeople had to actually admit success in Iraq?

An Indignant Iraqi

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, attacked Democrat Senators Hillary Clinton (NY) and Carl Levin (MI) for crticizing his government.

Faced with walkouts by members of his government and increasing criticism from U.S. officials, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told U.S. senators Sunday to butt out of his country’s domestic politics.

“There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin,” al-Maliki told reporters in Baghdad. “This is severe interference in our domestic affairs.”

It pains me to defend Democrats when it regards Iraq.  But, no sir, Mr. al-Maliki – we will not butt of of Iraq’s domestic politics.  America has a vested interest in seeing Iraq succeed.  Our soldiers are there to ensure the stability of your nation.  And everything you do or don’t do affects our ability to bring these men and women back home as soon as possible.  If that means that your government must go – so be it.

al-Maliki has been a failure when it comes to implementing reforms necessary for the political stabilization of Iraq.

Government leaders said Sunday they had reached agreement on some of those measures. But the top Sunni Arab in the Iraqi leadership, Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, played down the reports of progress, and his office called the agreements “not so significant.”

The benchmarks Congress has set to to judge the Iraqi government’s progress include passage of legislation allocating Iraq’s oil revenues, easing restrictions on former members of executed dictator Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party and setting up provincial elections.

Those benchmarks are fair and should be met.  al-Maliki, however, has done little to meet those goals.  Consequently, the political situation in Iraq is still tenuous.  That means that the US presence in Iraq must be maintained in order to combat the instability caused by al-Maliki’s failures as a leader.

President Bush has repeatedly covered for al-Maliki.  I guess I can understand why he might be inclined to do that.  But the fact is that the current government has failed to produce.  They have had sufficient time to at least make some hint of progress, but that has not occured.  One might easily blame the opposition groups and ethnic tensions, but that is not an excuse.  al-Maliki’s challenge is to unite the factions.  If he cannot do that, then it is time to turn the reigns over to someone new.

We can meddle in Iraq’s domestic affairs as much as we like until the day that they keep up their end of the bargain and allow us to leave a stable, secure nation.