Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is under heat now from at least two politicians and, for at least one day, President Bush.
Earlier in the week on Tuesday Mr. Bush couldn't bring himself to endorse the leadership of Mr. Maliki in a press conference and expressed frustration with the government's lack of progress.
A day later he said Mr. Maliki was "a good guy, good man," and that American politics shouldn't supercede the Iraqi people's determination on how to form their government.
Mr. Bush's comments came after Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Illinois and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said that the Maliki government had "totally and utterly failed."
Now Sen. Diane Feinstein, California Democrat, has called for the embattled prime minister's head:
"My own view is that he should resign. The problem is who would replace him, what does that mean, and what are the implications? I think Maliki has been a failure. Parliament doesn't show up for work. The ministers walk out. And he can't meet the benchmarks he set for himself. There are Shia against Shia, and Shia against Sunni. Iraq has become very destabilized and the leadership is not adequate. So, my view is that he should resign."
Here's the problem for Democrats. The troop surge that President Bush called for is working, American casualties in July were the lowest in the short history of this war.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that, "More American troops have brought more peace to more parts of Iraq. I think that's a fact."
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware said on CNBC's Kudlow and Company that "parts of the surge are working."
Even the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, said: "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working."
And many others, including Sen. Barack Obama, said it is working to improve things "in the short term."
The problem for Republicans is that the surge was touted as a way to help the Iraqi government solidify itself and become more effective, and that hasn't happened.
The government's response was to have the entire Sunni wing of the unified parliament resign en masse in May, just as the surge began, then return in July and not show up for work.
But somehow this is all Maliki's fault. And American politics has nothing to do with it.
Comments (2)
I think it its about time that someone question the lack of progress being made by the Maliki administration. But I am upset that the Bush administration is not stepping up to the plate when it comes to laying the blame about poor decisions made on the american side. I also am upset by the fact that all the 2008 presidential canidates are arguing over wether or not it was good to go into Iraq. I think they should start finding solutions to the problems we are facing now. The Maliki administration has been accused of turning a blind eye to the other religous sectors when his military mistreats them. This accusation leads me to wonder wether or not democracy is the best form of government to be used in Iraq. I believe this because when there are religous sects that are willing to kill each other based purely on there affiliation, then how can there be a fair government when one party ends up on top. That would seem to me to spark more voilence than has already been created by american presence. Plus a governmental system made for western culture should not be expected to flourish in a world so divided and unstable. I think that we as americans should not place the blame on only the Maliki administraion but also the decisions that were made during the establishment of the government by american politicians.
Posted by soccer politics | August 27, 2007 9:14 PM
Personally, I agree that Maliki should resign. He hasn't been successful in ruling or uniting the fractions in his country and now that his support is no longer coming from the US, he has been left in the open. Iraq needs a leader that can fulfill these duties without the support of the US. We want Iraq's government to function on their own. If the end of US support puts Maliki off the political map, we need to find a stronger canidate for Prime Minister.
Has Bush come to the conclusion that the fate of the Iraqi government no longer lies with the US administration?
Posted by GWHannahFisher | August 27, 2007 10:13 PM