When Parrots Speak and Puppets Squawk

Recently, Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has shown striking signs of wanting to be his own man in Baghdad, not Washington's (as has Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul). What happens when parrots suddenly speak and puppets squawk on their own? The answer, it seems, is simple enough: You listen in; so, at least, the lastest revelations of journalist Bob Woodward seem to indicate. "The Bush administration," reports the Washington Post, "has conducted an extensive spying operation on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, his staff and others in the Iraqi government, according to a new book by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward. 'We know everything [Maliki] says,' according to one of multiple sources Woodward cites about the practice." This is perhaps what is meant when it's claimed that President Bush and Maliki have a "close working relationship."

An Iraqi government spokesman responded to the revelation with shock: "If it is a fact, it reflects that there is no trust and it reflects also that the institutions in the United States are used to spying on their friends and their enemies in the same way. If it is true, it casts a shadow on the future relations with such institutions."

"Trust"? Please... Wasn't that always just a synonym for electronic eavesdropping?

As for "success" in Iraq, which we've been hearing quite a lot about lately in the U.S., here's one way to measure the administration's trust in its own "success": The Pentagon, we now learn, has just "recommended" to President Bush that there should be no further troop drawdowns in Iraq until a new president enters office in January 2009 -- and even then, possibly in February, that no more than 7,500 Americans should be withdrawn, and only if "conditions" permit. So the administration's "success" in Iraq could, in terms of troop levels, be measured this way: The U.S. invaded and occupied that country in the spring of 2003 with approximately 130,000 troops. According to Thomas Ricks in his bestselling book Fiasco, by that fall, its top officials fully expected to have only about 30,000 troops still in the country, stationed at newly built American bases largely outside major urban areas.

In January 2007, when the President's desperate "surge" strategy was launched, there were still approximately 130,000 U.S. troops in the country, and, of course, tens of thousands of hired guns from firms like Blackwater Worldwide. Today, there are approximately 146,000 troops in Iraq (and the U.S. is spending more money on armed "private security contractors" than ever before). By next February, according to Pentagon plans, there would still be about 139,000 troops in Iraq, 9,000 more than in April 2003, as well as more than early in Bush's second term, as Juan Cole pointed out recently -- and that's if everything goes reasonably well, which, under the circumstances, is a big "if" indeed.

As Michael Schwartz, sociologist and author of the forthcoming book War Without End: The Iraq War in Context, indicates (in a new piece, "Who Lost Iraq?"), for all the talk over the years about "tipping points" reached and "corners" turned, it's just possible that -- while the Bush administration and the McCain campaign are pounding the drums of "success" -- the U.S. might be heading for an unexpected and resounding tipping-point-style defeat. Moreover, it might well be administered by the very Iraqi government Washington has supported all these years, whose true allies may turn out to be living not in Camp Victory, the huge U.S. base on the outskirts of Baghdad, but in Tehran. "The question remains," he concludes, "Can anything reverse the centripetal forces pulling Iraq from Washington's orbit? Will the President's ‘surge' strategy prove to have been the nail in the coffin of its hopes for U.S. dominance in the Middle East?" Or, put another way, the question is: just how will the Bush administration wrest actual defeat from the jaws of self-proclaimed victory.

Comments (35)

1. Happy-You mean insult a candidate by calling them magic negro,half and half,zebra,etc?You did not expect Jefferson Davis Palin to be insulted.You had no idea of what to expect because you knew nothing about her and still know very little which does not say much for your side and says that you are the kool aid drinkers because only a kool aid drinker would have become instantly energized by someone that most never heard of and know little to nothing about..

   Posted by i'm nobody at 09/08/2008 @ 11:29am

2. ALL presidential candidates need to promise to reinstitute Executive Order 12834 which was signed into law by Bill Clinton and effective on January 20, 1993, and , among other things, prohibited members of administration to work as foreign agents or lobbyists or on behalf of any private corporation for at least five years after resigning...

   This same order was rescinded by Bill Clinton effective January 20, 2001, entitled Executive Order 12834, which at once, allowed clinton to lobby foreign governments and which subsequently bush took full advantage of...

   one of mccain's trademarks in his campaign is to lessen influence of lobbyists, and PACs....

   I would like to see some mention or some actual substance instead of campaign jargon actually addressing this.....

   Same with Barack Obama......

   Posted by jrs112 at 09/08/2008 @ 11:31am

3. Executive Order 13184 was the Clinton Executive Order of 2001 which rescinded Executive Order 12834 of 1993 and which allowed him to pardon 140 shady characters.....

   Posted by jrs112 at 09/08/2008 @ 11:33am

4. Funny that HAPPY's TWO "refutations" of Mr Engelhardt are to

   A. attack him personally.

   B. try to change the subject to Barack Obama.

   Seems if HAPP COULD refute what he said...he would.

   The point is simple...al-Maliki isn't "playing ball" and repeating back the Bush-McCain talking points. He wants us out and QUICK! He's also being FRIENDLY to Iran (since they actually have to LIVE beside each other) and not "hinting" at either us or Israel needing to bomb the crap out of them.

   But the neo-cons here at home can't directly attack al-Maliki since he's part of their "proof we WON the war and created a democracy in Iraq!"

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 11:37am

5. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/08/2008 @ 11:29am

   Actually, I'M, the problem the GOP is having is hardly ANY of them knew much about her...including McCain.

   Her little "dust-ups" since being nominated are clearly a sign that McCain and the Repubs didn't fully vette her and she was a "quick, last minute choice if Obama didn't pick a woman as Veep"...

   he didn't and went with Biden and McCain rapidly shifted gears from Lieberman/Romney/Pawlenty/etc....and said "find a chick the Right will love and don't waste time looking into her family, their associations, or any crazy preachers she might know!"

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 11:54am

6. Mask-From what I've seen McCain knows lots about her body ,but little else.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 09/08/2008 @ 11:58am

7. (hint: The One who finally admitted that The Surge worked!)

   Posted by 2HAPPY at 09/08/2008 @ 11:02am

   As usual, a partial fact out of context. He said it worked to quell violence (as more bodies should) but it did not lead, by itself, to political reconciliation. The current fumblings at this are the product of the Sunni awakening which only occurred because we A) kept the Shia out and B) paid them to fight for their own country.

   So as the "the Surge" was supposed to create political reconciliation and has not, it has not achieved its stated goal.

   Posted by leftofcenter at 09/08/2008 @ 11:59am

8. I will repeat. the surge that accounts for the drop in violence, is the surge of cash, as we put tens of thousands of Sunnis on the American payroll. along with tens of thousands of Shia, of course.

   Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2008 @ 12:05pm

9. I don't understand. Zhen the men in power in Afghanistan and Iraq oppose the actions of the Bush government, isnt that a good thing, indicating that their countries are ready to assert their independence?

   Posted by Mistral at 09/08/2008 @ 12:10pm

10. The surge is the same thing as putting extra cops and money into a high crime area and, as long as the extra cops and money are there,the crime rate will stay down,but we have no idea what is going to happen in Iraq once the extra cops and money are gone.We can only look at places like Spain,places in Africa,the former country of Yugoslavia,etc. to know that,quite often, old rivalries and resentments don't go away and,frequently,this stuff simmers until it explodes,again.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/08/2008 @ 12:16pm

11. jomamma-Hillary is playing ball,now.Hillary does not want to just be POTUS someday.Hillary wants to go down in history as the first female POTUS and will do what she can to make sure that Palin does not beat her to that.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/08/2008 @ 12:19pm

12. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/08/2008 @ 12:19pm

    That's a roll of the dice, I'M.

    Let's presuppose that Hillary IS following a "FRANKGRITS strategy"...i.e. get McCain elected and then make her run at it in 2012 (which WILL be her last shot, no way she can win at nearly 70 in '16).

    If McCain wins, and decides NOT to seek a 2nd term, then Palin becomes the GOP nominee...practically by coronation that HRC was once thought to get...the Repubs are strict "It's his/her turn" types and any dissension against her would be squashed.

    THEN HRC would face off against a female Vice-President and a female vote possibly split...and no way to cry sexism against Palin.

    Plus all the old baggage that Hillary carries...having Bill back in the White House and images of him chasing interns and sticking his bulbous nose in WH affairs....her attacks on Obama (which might even kill any shot at 2012 anyway...but surely won't help in the General)....her high negatives...

    If McCain loses, then Obama is automatically the nominee in 2012 and again, HRC is too old in 2016 (plus she's of the "old Generation"...likely we'd see some guys like Tim Kaine or Brian Schweitzer step up).

    FRANK's "plan" may work out...in the short-term. McCain/Palin MAY win this thing....but the long-term is going to be tough...especially if word gets around that SHE (or her PUMA/FG minions) cost Obama the election!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 12:31pm

13. Don't forget, the US spied on the UN during the run up to the cakewalk in Iraq. This is how Bushco treats it's allies, and citizens.

    Freedom...

    Like Family Values...

    and resoring morality to Washington...

    are just words to be used upon the sheeple. When the tires hit the pavement, all it is is so much propaganda.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2008 @ 12:38pm

14. Palin or Python...

    "Who Said That?"

    "I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK...

    II sing and dance, I skip and jump, I like to press wild flahers..

    I put on womens clothing and hang around in bars!"

    a: Michael Palin

    b: Iraqi bound Palin

    c: Senator Ahdidhiminthejohn

    d: all of the above

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2008 @ 12:45pm

15. a picture is worth a thousand words...

    http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f309/Tejun/sarah-palin-mccain.jpg

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/08/2008 @ 12:56pm

16. Posted by leftofcenter at 09/08/2008 @ 12:56pm

    Really, the PhotoShopped stuff needs to stop....though that was funny.

    Actually with NO creative editing, watch the video of McCain announcing Palin in Dayton two weeks ago....

    they close up on his eyes and he is DEFINITELY checking out her boobs!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 12:58pm

17. I wonder if Bushfools, who lives by the polls, would be so kind as to post the current polls and tell us what they mean? Also, will ALGORE now be reconsidered for the ticket?..since Hillary is not really playing ball? Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/08/2008 @ 12:09pm

    Well if you pay attention to state polls instead of national polls Obama is still up by about 70 electoral college votes.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/08/2008 @ 1:11pm

18. Posted by 2HAPPY at 09/08/2008 @ 11:02am

    You have got to be kidding me. You have spent this WHOLE election insulting Obama. Now you are trying to backpedal on that? What a joke.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/08/2008 @ 1:12pm

19. I guess this is the price of victory right? I mean you guys have been saying that we won already. I guess winning means that you have to leave more troops in the country than it took to take the country in the first place. V for victory guys. I bet when Germany and Japan fell during World War 2 we increased troop levels, you know just to make sure everything was on the up and up. I bet that increased troop presence didn't even go home for another 100 years or so. You know until conditions "permitted".

    Like I have been saying all along. The violence has ceased for a period. We are getting a moment of silence as the enemy regroups. We have not reached any goals. There is no political over take. There is no Iraqi military. We are on a precipice which is just itching to go the wrong way and WILL go the wrong way when those people who are regrouping in Pakistan make their move again. The surge worked to reduce violence for a time and it worked only partially because of increased troop presence. The other portion was caused by the Sunni Awakening which was due to us PAYING them to fight for their country. When the money dries up do you think that will continue?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/08/2008 @ 1:18pm

20. Posted by 2HAPPY at 09/08/2008 @ 11:02am

    Oh this is truly sad coming from you by the way Happy. The party who has called Obama elitist, sexist, racist, a terrorist, lied about his religion, insulted his wife, Half and Half (yours), Magic Negro, Alibama, Barack Hussein Osama, Osama, sexist, a thief, ageist and many many other things. Now you are whining because people are letting Palin by on a free ticket.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/08/2008 @ 1:31pm

21. Maliki / the Shiites have been playing the US for years. They are going to slowly disentangle themselves from the occupation, slowly push out the 'beast', slowly block with Iran. The Mahdi Army is just faster on the draw.

    The Sunnis stopped attacking the U.S. because of the money and because Al Quada was trying to dominate the local groups. The 'surge' had litle to do with it. The Sunnis, under Hussein, blocked with the U.S. before. The Sunnies get support from ... Saudi, and still, from the U.S.

    The Sunnis are also 'using' the U.S. - but this will not last forever. And it is breaking down even now. Tikrit and the Kurds are working on it, the Shiites are working on it, and the Iraqi nationalist Shiites are working on it.

    Unstable equilibrium, which is evolving before our eyes.

    Posted by ElyDog at 09/08/2008 @ 1:42pm

22. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/08/2008 @ 1:31pm

    You didn't expect the GOP to win on....issues, did you?!!?!?!?!?

    LOL

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 2:15pm

23. What are the issues the GOP is running on?

    Change?

    From what? GOP control?

    Their similar record to Bill Clinton, keeping us safe from terrorism for 6 1/2 years, while sending 4000 Americans to be killed by terrorists?

    Killing the #3 AQ leader, six times?

    Their ability to bail out corporations?

    Or....

    Family Values?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2008 @ 2:22pm

24. turns out Jesus is not as powerful as a...

    condom.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2008 @ 2:25pm

25. You didn't expect the GOP to win on....issues, did you?!!?!?!?!? LOL Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 2:15pm

    It's funny. You will hear Happy, Darin, Jom and LVL say that the 90% of the country is with them on the issues yet that is always what the Republicans want to talk about the least. You would think if they were buoyed by the issues that they wouldn't need o participate in this 5 year old character attack tactics. You wouldn't think campaign managers would make make statements that this election is not about the issues.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/08/2008 @ 2:28pm

26. Actually, that should have been a question.

    What is more powerful, Jesus or a condom?

    Bristol, will you come to the front of the class to answer, please show your work.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2008 @ 2:30pm

27. Barak should visit Iraq, so McCain can whine about the press coverage of him in Iraq, then whine about the press coverage of Jefferson Davis Palin, while they keep her away from the press.

    they should run on Family Values, then keep her family "off the table".

    they should run on experience, then nominate a neophyte for VP.

    Are you all getting this down?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2008 @ 2:34pm

28. turns out Jesus is not as powerful as a...

    condom.----Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2008 @ 2:25pm

    Okay, think we've found the specific definition of ...."LVLIBERTY bait"!

    LOL (pretty funny, CRAB)

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 2:43pm

29. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/08/2008 @ 2:28pm

    You don't expect logic from those guys do you?

    According to them, Bush did a bang-up job as Prez, but the "powerful Liberal Media drove down his ratings, filling the peasants' heads with LIES about how rotten things were...from Iraq to gas prices to New Orleans to the deficit to not catching bin Laden!!!!"

    Some of the more ideological ones believe that...most know they're just bullflopping to try to cover for a guy who was PURE on Right-Wing Ideology (any claim that Dubya was "not conservative enough" is only avaiable from the John Birch Right of which maybe LVLIB and RIO are the last dying members)...

    but who was an incompetent administrator at the very least.

    And FEW of them see that they need to change....Hell, they STILL try to debate global warming when JOHN MCCAIN says it's real and man-made!

    And so, to keep them happy (and HAPPY) McCain throws them "Margaret Thatcher of the Yukon" as red meat in a pageant sash.

    But I think McCain is actually smarter than they are...and begins NOW his move to the Center and distance from the "Bush Right". He wants to win...and if elected, wants to be a success...which means despite offering "4 more years", he might just backstab these folks....if we're lucky!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 2:49pm

30. But I think McCain is actually smarter than they are...and begins NOW his move to the Center and distance from the "Bush Right". He wants to win...and if elected, wants to be a success...which means despite offering "4 more years", he might just backstab these folks....if we're lucky! Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 2:49pm

    He certainly made that effort in his speech to abandon them.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/08/2008 @ 3:08pm

31. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/08/2008 @ 3:08pm

    He HAD to....can't go around and keep linking yourself to Bush with a 28% approval and Cheney with an 18% approval by sucking upto the base who (like LVLIB) still like them.

    That was for the Primaries...and he threw them Caribou Barbie to keep them happy and distract from a RAPID run to the Center (which they criticized Obama for...again, hypocritically).

    Of course, a McCain Presidency will be bad (FRANKGRITS' gloating will be the start....heheh)....

    but I think McCain is interested in making a name for himself...pop psychology, but I think he wants to "out-do" Admiral Dad and Admiral Grandpa by being the guy who "reduced the deficit and WON the war in Iraq (and take a little dig at Dubya for 2000, by making it look like "I had to clean up that Bush boy's mess!").

    If we're unlucky and he wins....we might get LUCKY and he "goes Maverick" to secure his place in history and sells out LVLIB, HAPPY, PONTI, MAASCH, DARIN by doing things the way SANE Republicans used to do.

    Unlike Bush-41, he can then retire in 2012, snub his nose at the base, let Palin go down to ignominous defeat (She's Dan Quayle in a skirt), and History will treat him kindly, if the GOP base does not.

    Or he goes STUPID and tries to "stay true to his conservative principles"...and is at 35% approval before the end of 2009 and secures a veto-proof Dem Congress for two election cycles.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 4:12pm

32. "...and he threw them Caribou Barbie to keep them happy and distract from a RAPID run to the Center "

    Exactly Mask........I could hear the beer tabs a-poppin in the trailer parks and the guffawing commence as soon as she appeared.

    "Yee-haw Zeke. I sure am gonna vote for that, if ya know whutta mean?"

    "Yesirree Jim-Bob, sure wouldn't throw her outta bed for eatin mooseburger!"

    "Yee-haw"

    "Get-er-dun"

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/08/2008 @ 4:21pm

33. Posted by leftofcenter at 09/08/2008 @ 4:21pm

    Again, the label "Dan Quayle in a skirt" is appropriate because she was picked for EXACTLY the same rationale that Quayle was in 1988....Bush-41 needed to shore up a disgruntled base and he wanted to inject "youth" into his image.

    Coincidentially, like Bush-41 did in subtlely attacking Reagan with his "kinder, gentler" remark, McCain took a few digs at Dubya and the Hard Right in his.

    Both men knew that the Primaries were over and it was time to ignore the base and move to the Center and hope their ideologue, but lightweight Veep would keep the mob happy.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 4:28pm

34. Or he goes STUPID and tries to "stay true to his conservative principles"...and is at 35% approval before the end of 2009 and secures a veto-proof Dem Congress for two election cycles. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 4:12pm

    And buries the Republican party for the next 2 election cycles.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/08/2008 @ 4:38pm

35. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/08/2008 @ 4:38pm

    Exactly.

    See in his way, Limbaugh MIGHT have been right. If McCain gives up on 2012, he'll be free to become "Maverick" again.

    And that means COMPROMISING with the Dem Congress....and forcing Rush, Hannity, Fox News, etc. to SUPPORT him (or be on the outs politically)...

    and guys like HAPP, LVLIB, PONTI to grind their teeth, since they will know they bought a pig in a poke, due to fear of the "Commie Muslim Negro"

    and come 2012 you'd have Palin on the Hard Right...versus a McCain Maverick and two blocs going at each others' throats.

    OR......McCain stupidly remains in the "Dubya brigade" and assures GOP defeats in 2010 AND 2012 making the Repub brand so poisonous that you'd have Collins, Snowe, Specter, etc. flip to Dem and it'd make 2006 look like 1998.

    Limbaugh said "McCain as nominee will destroy the Republican Party as it is"....either way, he might be right!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/08/2008 @ 4:45pm