Maliki rejects the timetable Bush is probably touting right now.

http://news.yahoo.com/...

The defiant al-Maliki also slammed the top U.S. military and diplomatic representatives in        Iraq for saying Iraq needed to set a timetable to curb violence ravaging the country.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Tuesday that al-Maliki had agreed to the plan, announced at a rare joint appearance with Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who said he would not hesitate to ask for more troops if he felt they were necessary.

It sounds to me as though al Maliki isn't that anxious for Republicans to win on November 7.

In the article al Maliki claims that Iraq is not concerned with our elections. He also disavows prior knowledge of a U.S.-Iraqi joint operation in Sadr City.

Al Maliki also claims to believe that most of the violent deaths are caused by foreign fighters.

In his comments, Al-Maliki also appealed to neighboring states to cease meddling in Iraq's domestic affairs -- an apparent reference toIran and Syria, which are accused by the U.S. and Iraqi officials of aiding Sunni and Shiite armed groups.

He blamed foreign fighters in groups such as al-Qaida in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's loyalists for driving violence that takes the lives of around 40 Iraqis every day, and possibly many more.

"I would like to state here that the root of the battle we are fighting in Iraq and the root of the bloody cycle that we are undergoing is the presence of terror organizations that have arrived in the country," al-Maliki said.

If he believes that, no wonder he's in no hurry to deal with the homegrown militias. But does he believe it, or is it calculated lies, such as we hear from our own Republicans every day? Has he learned from the masters? Does he know more than our guys in Baghdad?

Anyway, I'd say he just shot the new administration strategy to mitigate American frustration and anxiety over Iraq before November 7 right between the eyes.

•  al Maliki cut and ran

  from the Bush plan.  (Sorry Bush Plan is an oxymoron)  But a powerless Iraqi PM + a clueless Bush = More Death.

  by deepsouthdoug on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 06:07:51 AM PDT

  •  FWIW, any variable + any member of the Bush ...

    ... war racketeering cartel = death.

    They've been perfecting this racket for four generations, since Great-great-grandfather Sam put on the first "Merchant of Death" top-hat.

    by Yellow Canary on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 06:16:18 AM PDT

•  I'd like to say...

  ...unbelievable, but of course it's not.  I like this comment from Maliki:

  ...he believed the U.S. talk of timelines was driven by the upcoming U.S. midterm election.

  by BarbinMD on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 06:22:16 AM PDT

  •  No, really!!!

    I'm shocked.  Shocked.

    I'm still reading "State of Denial."   Right now I am reading about the 2004 campaign, and an NSC staffer's incredulity that while on the campaign trail, Bush doesn't seem to do any actual governing, or policy analysis, or anything, really, except get sound bytes from Karl.

    His incredulity is shocking.

    by litigatormom on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 07:15:26 AM PDT

•  asdf

  "I would like to state here that the root of the battle we are fighting in Iraq and the root of the bloody cycle that we are undergoing is the presence of terror organizations that have arrived in the country," al-Maliki said.

  Sounds more like he is talking about the US.

  Iran and Syria.. and now Bush is lumping them with Queda as the reason for our failure to establish any order? This must be Yahoo's version of snark because it would take a complete moron to believe this otherwise.

  In an article yesterday, it appears more likely that Iraq will follow the Afghanistan model of 'democritization' while we move on to Iran and Syria. Same old story.

  Reuters: U.S. blames Iran, Syria for Iraq violence

  BAGHDAD (Reuters) - America's civilian and military leaders in Iraq linked Iran and Syria with al Qaeda on Tuesday as forces trying to tear the country apart and prevent the United States from establishing a stable democracy.

  The comments from ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and General George Casey were among the strongest U.S. officials have leveled against Iraq's two neighbors over alleged support for armed groups behind much of the bloodshed.

  Khalilzad depicted the struggle to build a united, democratic Iraq as "the defining challenge of our era" and said it would shape the future of the Middle East and global security.

  "Those forces that constitute the extremist camp including not only al Qaeda but Iran and Syria are at work to keep us and the Iraqis from succeeding," Khalilzad told a rare joint news conference with Casey, two weeks before U.S. Congressional elections.

  by borkitekt on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 06:56:06 AM PDT

  •  The Administration's own "Strategery for Victory"

    last year acknowledged that most of the violence was NOT caused by foreign fighters.

    I guess they forgot about that strategery, now that they're not changing it but just adjusting the tactics to win.

    by litigatormom on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 07:17:16 AM PDT

    •  I would say that election strategery

      was unrelated to Iraq strategery, but actually they are identical. The strategery is to win!

      by Cowalker on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 07:20:50 AM PDT

    •  admin or CIA?

      Do you remember which?

      Besides, how dare other countries meddle in Iraq's affairs! Shame on them!

      by borkitekt on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 07:40:18 AM PDT

  •  I woke up to the sound of Santorum

    on NPR saying how he was all for bombing Iran to stop them from being violent in Iraq. Can you imagine the effect on our troops, trapped in Iraq, if we just start throwing bombs into Iran?

    I guess Santorum will say anything if he thinks it will help him hang onto power. Otherwise I'd have to assume his head is full of santorum.

    by Cowalker on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 07:18:13 AM PDT

    •  my prob is

      we are pushing a ridiculous lie in what appears to be to get Iran and Syria involved in a larger war.

      Hopefully the public is not gullible enough to believe it, that we are primarily to blame for this mess.

      by borkitekt on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 07:38:49 AM PDT