Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, I mean. Has he never heard the words "regime change" before? Does he think he can contradict George II and get away with it? First he rejects Bush's timetables; next, he says he could bring security to Iraq in six months if the U.S. would let him control the military. Now Maliki is mad because the U.S. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, a Afghani-born Sunni, acts as though he's in charge of the place. Bush likes to say that Iraq is sovereign and that the government there belongs to the Iraqi people. Somehow I don't think he's leveling with us.
As for Maliki, what an ingrate! Who does he think got him where he is today?
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Mr. Richman,
Great commentary.
Indeed, for that total ingrate to think(?) he might actually be in charge of HIS own governmenet. How absurd! He is the sock puppet of W. Gump and company, and he best start acting as such or he might just be "deposed" by the gang that gave him the job.
I take your commentary on two levels. First as a very serious description of the current mess in Iraq. Second, as a sort of tongue-in-cheek comment.
I tend towards the second only because I need a good laugh today.
charlie ehlen
Glenmora, LA
Dubya may be George II of the Bush dynasty, but shouldn't you refer to him as George III (considering Washington was the first George)?
Joe: He's the son of the former president. Literary license. :)
Thanks, Charlie. We might as well laugh.
Sheldon,
I know it's literary license and that GWB is the son of GHWB. I just think George III is more appropriate because of the other George III who was king in 1776.
Post a Comment