It appears the US and Iraqi gov't have stopped talking to each other

[sabra]

Khalilzad makes a statement (w/o Maliki present) about benchmarks...

http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061025/NEWS/610250394/-1/State

U.S. officials revealed neither specific incentives for the Iraqis to implement the plan nor penalties for their failure to do so. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Iraqi leaders had agreed to the timeline, benchmarks heavily laden with enticements to Sunni insurgents.

Bush asked, where was Maliki?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061025.html

<snip>

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You talk about the U.S. government and the Iraqi government working closely together on benchmarks. I'm wondering, sir, why was Prime Minister Maliki not at the news conference yesterday with General Casey and Ambassador Khalilzad? Would that not have sent a strong message about there being a very close level of cooperation between the two governments?

THE PRESIDENT: Elaine, I have no idea why he wasn't there.

Q Was he invited, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I have no idea. I'm not the scheduler of news conferences. I do know they work very closely together, and they've got a very close working relationship, and that's important.

Maliki states the whole "benchmark" spin is from Bush's visit 2 months ago

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=HOL661955

Q. The U.S. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, spoke on Tuesday of a series of "benchmarks" on political and security issues that were agreed with your government. Is this the case?

A. I want to clarify something ... Khalilzad was at a meeting between us and other officials including the president and his deputies. We discussed setting a timetable for solving pending issues. That was two months ago ... It is not a timetable for the government but rather the issues needed to be solved. We said, for example, 'In November we will finish this and in January this and in 2007 we will amend the constitution'. The term used by Khalilzad was not accurate. That is why it was negatively understood. It is a list of issues we need to solve and this was our decision. It was not Khalilzad's decision but he was present.

[Jacobin]

1. Watch for another regime change, messy one

The CIA bumped off the president of Viet Nam when we didn't like what he was doing and installed president Thieu.

[sabra]

Maliki actually addresses that in his Q&A

<snip>

Q. Are you concerned that the United States could try to push you aside if there is no progress in the coming months?

A. I don't think American policy would commit the mistake of replacing a prime minister or a government in Iraq. That would be burning their slogans. I don't think they think like that as it would mean the failure of the entire political process. As far as 'tough decisions' go, I say we want to take firm and difficult decisions. But anyone who wants to take a difficult decision has to do so from solid ground and so the far the ground is unstable -- due to current security policies ...

If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq it is the Coalition. I am now prime minister and overall commander of the armed forces yet I cannot move a single company without Coalition approval because of the U.N. mandate. So those who have the authority and could move the forces are also responsible. This should be clear ...

I have to be careful fighting some militias and terrorists ... because they are better armed than the army and police. The other point is that the army and police have been infiltrated because they were randomly formed. There are terrorists in the army and militias in the police and also members of the old regime.

[marmar]

2. It's all falling apart....

It's as if would-be empires never learn from those that came before. Can't you see the history book chapter now?: The United States of America, 2000-2008: The Great Downfall.

[thereismore]

3. Bush*: I am not a scheduler, I am a decider. nt

[valerief]

4. Oh, and Condi Rice is so charming. Alas alack. nt