home

Sunni Bloc Threatens To Leave Iraq Government

The Maliki government is falling to pieces:

The largest bloc of Sunni Arabs in the Iraqi Parliament threatened to withdraw its ministers from the Shiite-dominated cabinet today in frustration over the Iraq government’s failure to deal with Sunni concerns. President Bush stepped in to forestall the move, calling one of Iraq’s two vice presidents, Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni Arab, and inviting him to Washington, Mr. Hashimi’s office said in a written statement. The bloc, known as the Iraqi Consensus Front and made up of three Sunni Arab parties, “has lost hope in rectifying the situation despite all of its sincere and serious efforts to do so,” the statement said.

1, 2, 3, 4, what are we fighting for?

At least 104 United States troops lost their lives in hostile actions in Iraq in April, the highest of any month so far this year. Another 13 deaths among other allied forces have been reported, making it the highest monthly death toll for all allied forces in more than two years. Military reporting typically lags at least 24 hours so the final total for the month could be higher.

Last month, 104 American soldiers lost their lives so that George Bush's feewings don't get hurt. I'm livid tonight. At George Tenet, David Broder and each and every enabler of the worst President in history who has plunged us into the most castastrophic foreign policy debacle in our history.

This Debacle must be ended. By the Democratic Congress. There are no other options.

< Stu Rothenberg: Dems The Moderate Party | Waas: Alberto Gonzales' Secret Firing Order >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Toast (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:44:39 PM EST
    Malaki will have to step down. Saudi Arabia will not even talk to him. He is not a uniiter. The US must leave so that Iraq can work with its neighbors to form a representative Iraqi government with an Iraqi agenda.

    al-Sadr has the most potential to unite the country, that is if he can get his black clad hoodlums to stop killing Sunnis. If he were able to stop them he would have a very strong hand. Of course that could only happen after the US leaves. There is too much confusion with talk of US special ops also dressing up in black and killing Sunnis.

    Tomorrows WaPo article (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Coldblue on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:56:36 PM EST
    has a quote from a soldier that pretty well sums it up;
    [snip] Fowler sighed. It's a war between Iraqis, she said.

    "We are just interfering, and letting our soldiers die."

    Indeed.

    i am hoping (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by conchita on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:30:52 PM EST
    the leadership conference in egypt this week will open the possibilities for diplomacy.  i'm amazed that it is happening and will included representation from the iraq (if anyone is left in the government), iran, syria, and the u.s.  i have no idea who will be attending on behalf of the u.s., but hope it will be someone with half a brain who will be able to recognize the opportunity it presents.

    Condi (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:36:08 PM EST
    the only good things i can think of to say (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by conchita on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:42:41 PM EST
    about that are at least they are sending the person who is nominally in charge of the state department and at least they are not sending eliot cohen.

    Parent
    Guess who got into this (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:49:19 PM EST
    A second time. Now with Kargo. . . His point at the very end is difficult to argue with:
    All it takes to get a bill into committee is dropping it in the hopper. Then you file your discharge petition. The end.

    And if you don't have affirmative agreement from the Caucus that there will be no bill, then how do you prevent the discharge petition scenario? Someone drops a bill, files the petition, Pelosi asks Dems not to sign but it only works on 75% of them, and all of a sudden, you have a vote coming.

    Argh!

    Kagor is ridiculous on this as always (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 01, 2007 at 12:03:25 AM EST
    Thje answer is simple.

    If we can't hold the Caucus for NOT funding, how in hell are we going to get impeachment?

    Forget those fools. Apparently they can't count.

    51 for example, is 16 less than 67.

    I have no respect for Kagro's opinion on the subject.

    He lives in a world of delusion.

    Let me put it this way, if we can impeach, then ending the war is not a problem. We can override Bush's veto.

    Amnd since you can do that, then no one will want to impeach.

    Frankly, he is talking like an idiot.

    For NOT funding, I don't need any Republicans. What Dem is going to face the wrath of breaking on this if we are at, say 210? No one is. That's the answer.

    To put it bluntly, Kagro is full of crap on the issue.

    Not worthy of a discussion. Frankly, it is complete idiocy. I do not bother discussing the issue with him. HE is simply a lunatic on impeachment.


    Parent

    The rules are not that simple, either. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by walt on Tue May 01, 2007 at 12:27:57 AM EST
    The process of a discharge petition is more complex than this description.

    First, the chair of the committee can sit on the bill for 30 days.  Period.  Second, the petition is public & posted in CR.  Third, it takes the 218 majority to bring the bill to the floor.

    The discharge process has worked 3 or 4 times since 1985: Mclure-Volkmer on firearms, McCain-Feingold on campaign finance & Balanced Budget twice.

    This entire line of discussion is almost inchoherently irrelevant.  From Wikipedia: "563 discharge petitions were filed between 1931 and 2003, of which only 47 obtained the required majority of signatures. The House voted for discharge 26 times and passed 19 of the measures, but only two have become law."  Pshaw!

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue May 01, 2007 at 01:48:18 AM EST
    I didn't bother to look this up, but I think the reality strengthens my position. There likely aren't 218 public signatures to discharge a clean bill.

    Parent
    I'd like to see a clean bill with no earmarks! (none / 0) (#11)
    by annefrank on Tue May 01, 2007 at 02:22:34 AM EST
    The Dems who will only vote with Pelosi if earmarks are included are benefiting from the war - much like Halliburton.


    Parent
    That's not what I mean (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Tue May 01, 2007 at 02:38:24 AM EST
    by "clean bill."

    Parent
    argh! n/t (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue May 01, 2007 at 12:08:42 AM EST
    And (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:08:03 AM EST
    Victory is just around the corner. They're in there last throes.

    Oh... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Strick on Tue May 01, 2007 at 09:19:38 AM EST
    I believe it's,

    "1, 2, 3, what are we fighting for",

    where "for" is a play on the four count of the cadence.  You've got an extra "4".

    If you're going to maintain the absurd position that Iraq is Viet Nam, at least get the draft protest songs right.  

    You're right. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 09:28:52 AM EST
    Give me a "f", give me a "u", give me a "c", give me a "k"...

    What's that spell?

    Parent

    A Beat Counter (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by squeaky on Tue May 01, 2007 at 09:31:37 AM EST
    With no soul that lacks feeling, does not add up to much.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 01, 2007 at 09:53:17 AM EST
    What a brain.

    Parent