In a new speech, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki angrily rejected pressure to step down in favor of a new unity government, accusing those who were calling for it of a “rebellion against the constitution.”
Since the fall of Mosul and the takeover of much of the rest of the Sunni Arab portion of the country by ISIS, Maliki has been under growing pressure to resign, with the US in particular pushing for a new government that could court Sunni Arabs and Kurds after years of bristling under Maliki’s rule.
Maliki, however, saw recent calls by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani for unity, which everyone else interpreted as backing for a post-Maliki government, as a call for everyone to simply get unified behind his continued rule.
A post-Maliki government, if indeed one happens at all, isn’t likely to be much more friendly to Sunnis or Kurds, as the primary candidate hinted as the US favorite has been Ahmed Chalabi, whose years running the De-Baathification system have made him a lot of enemies among Sunni politicians, most of whom he’s tried to ban from office at one point or another.
Ironically unity might’ve been easier in 2010, when the secular Iraqiya Party won the election, but the US backed another term for Maliki in the hopes he would be more friendly to continuing the occupation. Iraqiya is much smaller this time around, as their big power base, the Anbar Province, largely didn’t get to vote in this year’s election, as it was under ISIS control.
The US shrugged off Maliki’s comments, insisting they believe he is still open to the “process” by which he will be removed from power.
Easier for the US and her cronies to pick on Maliki, rather than Putin or Assad or even Rouhani, it seems.
Perhaps the accusations against Maliki are correct but who in the HELL does the U.S. and other govts think they are in calling for his removal when the guy WAS elected. Do political opposition parties have a right in the U.S. to act violently in removing the elected govt because they don't like it? NO. Seems to be a pattern with the Obama regime. whether elected or not if the masses or parts of it act violently they support the removal of that govt when they should be condemning it. What goes around could come around.
Maliki, although not a good manager but people needs to understand the fact that he us against dividing Iraq into Kurdish, Sunni and sheei't region. The ISIS are not Iraqis, they are invaders mercenaries paid by Saudis and Qatari tyrants regime, they have become a noticeable force when USG started training them in Turkey and Jordan where Turkish government been supplying with their needs, now they want to establish a Islamic state in Iraq and Syria which conclude the idea presented by Joe Biden dividing Iraq. For ISIS, Saudis Qatari and Kuwaiti tyrants regimes is all in or nothing demanding to be recognized as a force and to be part of Iraqi government, if Joe Biden can accept for hell angels or other gangs to be part of USG, then it must be ok with Maliki government to accept the proposed idea by Barack Hussein Obama.
"… insisting they believe he is still open to the “process” by which he will be removed from power…"
Yeah, keep telling yourselves that. But for the rest of us who can read and comprehend at the same time, Maliki's statement seems to be quite clear that he's not going to willingly step down despite what Kerry thinks.
There's a word to describe people who insist on believing things that are clearly untrue: delusional. John Kerry, and various US State Dept. flunkies, seem to be living in a world all their own, where facts are never allowed to get in the way of their desired narrative.
There's another word: liars.