Thinkprogress: Did Cheney Ask For A Timeline?

[Hissyspit]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/10/did-cheney-ask-for-a-timeline/

Did Cheney ask for a timeline?

“At a news conference after the meetings, Mr. Cheney acknowledged that the Iraqis had given him no specific time commitments for legislative action on issues the Americans have identified as crucial.”

UPDATE: From last night’s CBS Evening News: “The word ‘time’ came up a lot during his meetings with Iraqi political leaders, as in time is running out, time to act on volatile, unsettled issues like real reconciliation, disarming militias, sharing oil revenue and Cheney warned Iraqi lawmakers this is no time to take a two month summer vacation, still a possibility.”

[rodeodance]

1. Eye on Iraq: Why Cheney failed

Forum Name Editorials & Other Articles
Topic subject Why Cheney failed
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x280744#280744
280744, Why Cheney failed
Posted by rodeodance on Thu May-10-07 11:41 AM




>
> Cheney couldn't get Malaki to move on oil law---70% to company..That's all he wants out of Iraq

> http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Analysis/2007/05/09/eye_on_iraq_why_cheney_failed /

Eye on Iraq: Why Cheney failed
Security & Terrorism - Analysis
Published: May. 9, 2007 at 6:43 PM

By MARTIN SIEFF
UPI Senior News Analyst
WASHINGTON, May. 9 (UPI) -- U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday he was encouraged by the greater sense of urgency he found in his talks with the prime minister of Iraq. What else could he say?

But the bottom line was that Cheney left Baghdad without being able to force any tangible progress towards the revenue and power-sharing deals with Sunnis and Kurds that the U.S. government regards as essential to creating an effective government over the whole of Iraq and cutting support for the remorseless Sunni guerrilla insurgents in the country.

...........
Cheney's failure to make any headway with Maliki on oil revenue sharing (stalled for more than a year) and the continuing effectiveness of the insurgents both stem from the same basic failure of the U.S. grand strategy on Iraq. The convoluted and ambitious democratic process that the United States painstakingly put into place to secure the election of the current Iraqi Parliament and the Maliki government did the opposite of what it was intended to do.

.............
Far from cementing a new national structure in place, the 2005 elections dealt a death blow to the fragile structures that the United States had been frantically building over the previous two and a half years. The elections confirmed and strengthened the primacy of the Sunni and Shiite militias, as well as the Sunni insurgents, throughout the country. It is the militias that are the basic building blocks of what remains of Iraqi society. Therefore, the Iraqi national army and police remain ineffectual against them. Only U.S. troops can prevail against the militias, but the 146,000 U.S. soldiers now in Iraq are still far too few to impose and maintain order in a nation of 28 million people.

[Rydz777]

2. If Cheney has any honesty left in him, he will come back and

urge an immdiate withdrawal. He will say that Bush should have signed the bill presented to him by the Democratic Congress - instead of vetoing it. But he will say none of this. We'll just get spin which will simply increase the cynicism. Our only hope now is that the Democratic Congress will stand firm and insist on a timeline. Out NOW.

[frogcycle]

3. it is going to be the ultimate irony

when Iraq kicks the US out for being too frigging greedy w/respect to the oil.

The Iraqis, if they are smart, will wake up sooner rather than later and realize that if they throw us the hell out and keep all the oil revenues to themselves, there'll be a big pie to split up and they can live in "peaceful coexistence" and hire chinese companies to do reconstruction.

If they continue dealing with the overbearing greedy Americans, they end up splitting up only 30% of the oil revenue, with the oil companies taking the rest.

The best deal they could make, for their own collective good, is to all shake hands, say to the US "get the fuck out" and then collectively clamp down on violence. They have the people to do it; they don't NEED our damned training. The militias may be thuggish, and they need more overt control, but the politicians can pull that off. Saddam did. They can declare three (or more) semi-autonomous regions, agree to share the pie, agree to clamp down on the insurgency and throw out Al Queda. They can figure out what sort of federal state to have over the regions (Tommy Thompson had this one right).

I've seen and heard comments that before the invasion Iraqis thought of themselves aas Iraqis first, and Sunni or Shia second. I heard a guy the other day answer "why do you stay?" with "I still love my country."

They need us gone, so they can face up to the fact that it is their problem. bush is like a parent who won't let the kid ride the bike without following along and holding on secretly. Only the parent does it for love; bush does it for greed.

The difference in our just "turning loose the bike" and the kid falling, vs. the kid saying "I got it, turn loose" is huge. I believe they want that, and perhaps the best way to get this thing over with is to mount a campaign to encourage Iraqi nationalism.

And I would just love for Maliki to tell bush "go away."