is collapsing. president maliki was appointed essentially by the u.s. he was chosen by the then-u.s. ambassador who was, himself, a bush appointee. and it s a function of his government the way he s conducted himself that we face this dissasterous situation we see in iraq today. it s a confusing situation. it s not at all clear what is the right thing to do. in terms of the american side of this debate, obviously this is not an american issue. this is an iraq we issue and an international issue. but we have got very difficult and hard to traverse politics around talking about iraq at all in this country because of the disaster of the failed and false case for the war in 2002. you went through a similar situation in britain. as the united states considers its option, i think there is a real as to what the u.s. congress has to decide. president obama has announced that 275 u.s. troops are going to iraq under the war powers resolution on his say-so alone.
rhetorical bombs without consequence. and as much noise as we hear right now about the always wrong peanut gallery yelling that president obama needs to reinvade iraq, there was just as much of that noise yelling that president obama needed to invade syria last year. you may remember. while it seemed for a moment like president obama maybe was going to do that and he was threatening to use air strikes in syria, he threatened that all military force options were on the table in syria. when it came time to maybe exercise those options last august, president obama went to the rose garden and made a speech. he acknowledged the congressional clamor for u.s. military intervention in syria and called the question. he said, yes, he was open to the prospect of military intervention in syria and if our country wanted to do it, congress should vote to do so. congress should take a vote and say that s what we should do
anthrax attacks. john mccain was wrong about whether there might ever be any trouble between sunnis and shias in iraq. because john mccain was so wrong about iraq, it is frustrating to see him everywhere, right? on the sunday shows, on the cable news shows, in the paper with reporters following him around the capitol now. as if his previous abject and consequential failures on this subject maybe him worthy about listening to the exact same subject right now. there s a lot of this going on right now. iraq war architects like kenneth pal lack, robert kagan are getting quoted in the new york times again advocating for another iraq war even though the last one they designed was such a disaster. politico quoting doug fife. bill kristol on abc. paul bremer in the wall street journal and cnn and msnbc. paul wolfowitz. judy miller, disgraced new york times reporter the newspaper had to apologize for after they
ambassador who was, himself, a bush appointee. and it s a function of his government the way he s conducted himself that we face this disastrous situation we see in iraq today. it s a confusing situation. it s not at all clear what is the right thing to do. in terms of the american side of this debate, obviously this is not an american issue. this is an iraq issue and an international issue. but we have got very difficult and hard to traverse politics around talking about iraq at all in this country because of the disaster of the failed and false case for the war in 2002. you went through a similar situation in britain. as the united states considers its option, i think there is a real as to what the u.s. congress has to decide. president obama has announced that 275 u.s. troops are going to iraq under the war powers resolution on his say-so alone. equipped for combat but basically there to preserve and protect american life and property.
on any sort of action? it s extraordinarily difficult. obviously the preferable outcome here is some kind of political solution both to the government crisis in iraq and also to the regional crisis because this is a war. these battles transcend borders. they involve syria, to an extend lebanon and elsewhere. this is a regional war is spreading. it needs to be dealt with. that would require the u.s. to engage with iran. there s no way maliki can be asked to step down as people now seem to be talking about here in the u.s. without the iranians consenting to that. he s a tough guy. he would, himself, object. he is to an extent a creature of iranian power and also to an extent he s his own man. getting some kind of new inclusive political settlement that would include sunnis and kurds as well as the dominant shia ethnicity would require the iranians to be engaged. yes. obviously they know that their interests are primary in