Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

US - Jordan - Iraq Summit Cancelled

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   
A U.S.-Jordan-Iraq summit that had been scheduled for Wednesday night was cancelled at the last moment at the request of the Iraqis. They apparently did not want the Jordanian king present for talks between U.S. President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, a top Iraqi legislator said. The move comes on the heels of a NY Times article which reported a confidential White House memo that cast serious doubts on the ability of Al-Maliki's government to curb sectarian violence in Iraq and his ability to lead the country.
 



news.yahoo.com
AMMAN, Jordan - President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Thursday opened talks originally set for the day before but canceled following disclosure of U.S. doubts about the Iraqi leader's capabilities and a Baghdad protest of his attendance.

Instead of talks over two days, the stunning turn of events found Bush and al-Maliki meeting for a working breakfast that was to be followed by a longer session and a news conference. The Iraqi prime minister came to Bush's hotel.

White House counselor Dan Bartlett denied that the delay was a snub by al-Maliki directed at Bush or was related to the leak of a memo written by White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley questioning the prime minister's capacity for controlling violence in Iraq.

Two senior officials traveling with al-Maliki, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, said the prime minister had been reluctant to travel to Jordan in the first place and decided, once in Amman, that he did not want "a third party" involved in talks about subjects specific to the U.S.-Iraqi relationship.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Given all the information about this topic I personally think that the timing is very suspect. Even if the Iraq's originally did not want Jordan in the talks the timing and manner in which the cancellation was announced tells me that this is retaliation, so to speak, for the leaked White House memo.

However since Al-Malaki has taken office sectarian violence has only increased and his policy of favoring Shiite groups and catering to their demands has not worked. His government is corrupt and ineffective, the US should give him an ultimatum, figure out a solution or we will expedite the process of giving control to Iraqi military.

Related News Links:
thetyee.ca
www.dailystar.com.lb
www.gulf-daily-news.com

[edit on 30-11-2006 by WestPoint23]




posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
His government is corrupt and ineffective...


So the US invaded their country, deposed their dictator, dismantled their government, abolished their army, gutted their civil service, occupied their cities, killed 100's of thousands, destroyed their infrastructure and now it is the Iraqis' fault that it's all falling apart. Ahh, if only the stink of failure, incompetence, lies and fraud washed off so easy by just playing the old "find a goat" blame game.

Andrew Bacevich, West Point graduate, retired colonel and professor of international relations at Boston University, takes up the question that will leave a rancid stench upon the US for years to come:


Fighting over who lost Iraq

The protagonists divide into three broad groups.

The Bush dead-enders. Although dwindling in number, President Bush's defenders will ascribe failure in Iraq to a loss of nerve, blaming media bias and liberal defeatists for sowing the erroneous impression that the war has become unwinnable. Bush loyalists will portray opposition to the war as tantamount to betraying the troops. Count on them to appropriate Ronald Reagan's description of Vietnam as "an honorable cause." Updating the "stab in the back" thesis, they will claim that a collapse of will on the home front snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Baghdad as surely as it did in Saigon.

The buck-stops-at-the-top camp. Adherents of this second view are currently in the ascendant, attributing the troubles roiling Iraq to massive incompetence in the Bush administration. In a war notable for an absence of accountability, demands for fixing accountability are becoming increasingly insistent. Parties eager to divert attention from their own culpability are pointing fingers. Senior military officers target Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Congressional Democrats who voted for the war and neoconservatives direct their fire against Rumsfeld and Bush. The theme common to all of these finger-pointers: Don't blame us; the Bush team's stupidity, stubbornness and internal dysfunction doomed the American effort.

The conspiracy theorists. Even before the United States invaded Iraq, critics on the far left and far right charged that powerful groups operating behind the scenes were promoting war for their own nefarious purposes. Big Oil, Halliburton, the military-industrial complex and Protestant evangelicals said to be keen on defending Israel all came in for criticism and even grassy-knoll-style paranoia.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Until US decides the truth, justice and accountablity are core values that will be strictly enforced by all, the miasma of this slacker dungocracy shall continue to propagate and spread like a disease, as in a corrupt and ineffective US government creating more of the same.

Meanwhile, back at the goat ranch:

The summit was not cancelled, only delayed:
Iraqi leader, Bush meet amid turmoil

Baker recommends cut and run:
Iraq Panel to Recommend Pullback of Combat Troops



[edit on 30-11-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 03:39 AM
link   
I wonder too about the leaked memo. Of course, it was published by the NYT, with their routine disregard of the impact on the situation.

On the other hand, maybe it will force action from al Maliki. He is a weakling who has been unable to take control of the situation between the Sunnis and the Shia. The rescheduling of the meeting shows that he tries to pander to all men; it will be seen as a concession to Mookie al Sadr's threats to take down the gov't if the meeting went through, and to the only man that is keeping him alive in Iraq these days, George Bush.

I don't buy the excuse that al Maliki didn't want a third party in on talks about Iraq. If that were the case, why didn't he voice that concern when the talks were being set up?

The other issue that bothers me is the leaking of the memo. There will be those who support it, for various reasons, but there will be people like me who see it as another act of stupidity from someone who thrives on the titillation of releasing details to the press.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The other issue that bothers me is the leaking of the memo. There will be those who support it, for various reasons, but there will be people like me who see it as another act of stupidity from someone who thrives on the titillation of releasing details to the press.

It was probably leaked because someone is trying to disrupt relations between Iraq and the US. Or could it have been a way for Bush to indirectly get the message across without saying it to his face at the meeting? Hmmm...

I agree that al-Maliki has been lenient on the Shiites, but otherwise there would be no government and al-Sadr would be running things.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
One brain dead idea after another seems to get tossed around when it comes Iraq. Involving the leaders of Iraq's neighbors is one of these brain dead ideas IMO.
Why in the world would you come to the table with people who are adding to Iraqs problem ?



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11

Why in the world would you come to the table with people who are adding to Iraqs problem ?


The Obvious answer is that the US is getting desperate to leave this expensive and increasingly bloody, regeim change/war/occupation ?

Maybe the US wants its troops out yesterday as they are expecting something pretty nasty to go down in the ME in the not so distant future ?



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
The Obvious answer is that the US is getting desperate to leave this expensive and increasingly bloody, regeim change/war/occupation ?


I understand that the coalition needs to get out of Iraq but that dosnt excuse taking a bad course of action. Of course expecting many of the people that got the coalition into this mess to take the wise course of action is asking far to much.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11


I understand that the coalition needs to get out of Iraq but that dosnt excuse taking a bad course of action. Of course expecting many of the people that got the coalition into this mess to take the wise course of action is asking far to much.


I agree, maybe its an indication of just how desperate the coalitions situation is getting ? putting all cards on the table, there now seems to be an endless line of suicide bombers and an unoffical civil War.

I think resposibility needs to be handed to the Iraqis yesterday and the coalition just needs to keep a large ready reaction force there out of harms way because as Policemen the Coalition are just sitting ducks.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   
NumberCruncher you may be right behind closed doors the Coalition is probably desperate to find away out of Iraq. The problem is that the Coalition has a extremely week hand to play. The best option would be to partition Iraq along tribal lines .



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
The best option would be to partition Iraq along tribal lines .

I agree. I think this should be put under consideration at this time. If the Kurd's, Sunnis and Shiites were separated, I think they would get along better and there would be no need for ethnic cleansing, which is what is happening now.

When India gained its independence, this is what they did. They created Pakistan and the Muslim's and Hindus moved into the two different countries. I think this is the only real long term solution.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
It was great fun watching Condi Rice spin spin spin last night on the NBC nightly news interview. She lied through her pointed teeth throughout the whole thing. Of course it was a snub....Bush flew all the way to Jordan for a joint summit with his Iraqi puppet and the the Jordanian King...it was what was planned and it was what was announced...when Maliki's people said that it was not in his plans to have a joint summit....the bushies scrambled to hide the obvious insult and totally failed. It is not a month since the mid-terms and bush has become such a lame duck I feel moved to offer him one of my canes.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   
As far as the delay to the meeting, it probably was a snub because of the memo being leaked, but I wonder if there was more to it. I was thinking maybe Maliki delayed the meeting because of al Sadr's threat to pull out of parliament if he met with Bush. Maybe the delay is a sort of compromise between meeting and not meeting with Bush. Either way, it was an embarrassment. I still wonder if the memo was leaked on purpose.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Who can blame Jordan? Their economy is being crushed by all the Iraqi refugees.





new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join