US Dumps Friends, Again: Assassination Plot for Maliki?

Well, if you thought the Bush Administration couldn't do more damage, think again. Now, in the continuing, time-honored tradition of dumping allies - remember our "friend" Saddam Hussein? - a story has now surfaced that the US is planning to dump Iraq's President Maliki - say what??? - yes, Maliki is now a possible target of US assassination plans... for what? First, of course, for his lack of enthusiasm for being under US military occupation and control for the forseeable indefinite future. And, backing that up, for his "leanings" towards that Satan, or possibly anti-Satan, Iran.

Baghdad: Americans, increasingly resenting recent moves by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, could seek to topple or even assassinate him, says a secret report by a Kurdish political party, which is part of the national government.

The report, which Gulf News has seen, says Al Maliki does not want to see any US soldier in Iraq after 2011 and he preferred strong political, economic and military relations with the Americans but not the presence and influence of the US military in his country.

The latest US resentment stem from Al Maliki's strong stance in the current talks to reach a strategic security agreement between the two countries, the report said.

So he's not a US lackey! He's destroying the whole purpose of the invasion, a 3 trillion dollar investment!

"Al Maliki has started to undermine the influence of those in the Iraqi military and security commanders who are classified as proteges of the Americans. This has raised concerns in the US military command in Baghdad. The freezing of the powers of the Iraqi Army's chief of staff, Babakir Zebari, is the first indication of this trend," the report said.

According to the report, the US suspects Al Maliki of getting closer to Iran in order to launch a broad military operation in Basra, Al Sadr City in Baghdad and Maysan province, in preparation for a complete withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

The report said the statement of Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr about converting most of the Mahdi Army into a social and cultural organisation, named Al Mumahidun, is part of the Iranian game.

Oooh, the Iranians have a game plan, an evil plan to convert a military organization into a "social and cultural organization". Now how evil can you get?

According to the report, the US is weighing three options.

The first is to topple Al Maliki in parliament and bring vice-president and leader of the Islamic Supreme Council, Adel Abdul Mahdi, into power. Mahdi, according to the US, is more pragmatic than Al Maliki. He enjoys the support of Shiite leader Abdul Aziz Al Hakim. But this option may not hold as Al Hakim and Mahdi are both considered close to Iran as well.

The second option is to pressure Al Maliki to resign. But this is difficult as he heads an elected government.

The third option is an assassination attempt against Al Maliki with the help of terrorist groups, and to put in place a puppet administration favourable to the Americans.

Oh, so we're going to out-evil 'em! How evil is assassination "with the help of terrorist groups"???? I thought it was a war on terror! But actually it's a war on ... on.... on anybody who disagrees with us, especially who doesn't like to be pushed around, to the tune of Big Guns, by the US.

US Maneuvers to Annex Iraq as a Base to Control that Pesky Middle East

If there were any doubts about US intentions in Iraq, their plans and demands laid down before Nouri al-Maliki, this should put them to rest:

On Friday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told reporters in Amman, Jordan that negotiations over initial U.S. proposals for bilateral political and military agreements between the United States and Iraq had "reached a dead end" after U.S. negotiators demanded "control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private contractors." BBC reports the disagreement between Maliki and U.S. negotiators "goes to the heart of the immensely sensitive issue of who is actually in charge in the country: the Americans or the Iraqis." "The Iraqi demands are unacceptable to the Americans, and the American demands are unacceptable to the Iraqis," Maliki said. "Iraqis will not consent to an agreement that infringes their sovereignty." The disposition of the negotiations will determine the future of the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Last week, members of the two ruling Shia parties leaked details of the U.S. proposal, telling McClatchy News that the United States is "demanding 58 bases as part of [an] agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely."

Hopefully, the Iraqis will NEVER give in to the American demands, which should totally destabilize the region and radicalize whatever moderates were "undecided" as to whose interests the United States works on in the region. The US is fighting tooth and nail to become the actual ruler of the region, militarily and economically. Politically? Well, the plan is to use clout on that front.

Establishing bases in Iraq from which to project American power through the
region has been one of the underlying goals of the war from its inception, and
partially explains why the United States has been willing to accommodate parties
such as Maliki's Da'wa and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (who
are close to Iran but also support U.S. goals), at least in the
short term. Conservative pundit Dick Morris spoke for much of the pro-war
community when he told Fox News that, after 4,000 American casualties in Iraq,
"I want bases out of that."

At least somebody agrees with me:

If the administration gets its way, American troops would be stationed in the
heart of the Middle East for the foreseeable future -- likely fueling continued
extremist anti-American sentiment and political unrest. This highlights the
tension between the U.S. goals of a democratic Iraq and a continued U.S.
military presence in Iraq. For that presence to be legal and legitimate, it must
be subject to agreement by the Iraqi government. But it is extremely unlikely
that any Iraqi government that agrees to an extended U.S. presence -- especially on the terms the U.S. is currently demanding --
will be viewed as legitimate by the Iraqi people.

As for national sovereignty, that's a thing of the past. Ahhhh, Empire..... it hurts so good... if you're from Richistan, that is....