Maliki downplays Iran’s influence in Iraq.
By on Sep 25th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Maliki downplays Iran’s influence in Iraq.
While the Senate and House were busy today ratcheting up tensions with Iran, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki claimed that Iranian weapons are no longer flowing into Iraq. “Asked about Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Forces, which the U.S. military charges is arming, training and directing Shiite militias in Iraq, Maliki said: ‘There used to be support through borders for these militias. But it has ceased to exist.’”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
He’s just the elected leader of Iraq. Why would we believe him?
September 25th, 2007 at 6:50 pmAnybody who thinks the Iraqis are in control of their own destiny are deluded. What happened to all those purple fingers, anyway. What were the elections for? What was the ’surge’ supposed to accomplish?
Lots of questions, few answers.
our troops, who are TERRORIZING iraqis are the terrorists… i dont blame them, i blame chimpco.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:51 pmIf Iran was a real problem, Patreaus would have asked Bush for thousands of troops to secure the border. Bush would have given them no questions asked.
Unfortunately it’s just a political prop being used by both, with our guys dying in the meantime.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:01 pmhttp://www.islamicmediacity.com/cms_files/news_images/1190391250.jpg
this picture is just a week old.. I’m sure they were just meeting to discuss Iran’s waning influence…has blackwater left like maliki said they should yet?
September 25th, 2007 at 7:03 pmThere is no longer a need for Iranian weapons to flow into Iraq. Bushco has a corner on the market. I will wager my usual odds ($20 to a glass of warm pee) that the insurgents in Iraq have more US made weapons than our own troops do. And they probably paid less for them than you and I did with our tax dollars.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:03 pm“we can finds friends elsewhere”
http://freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=50171
hmmm.. so if its not iran, who is he looking to buddy up with..
September 25th, 2007 at 7:06 pmCriticalthinker: “Do you think that George Bush could commit his crimes against humanity without troops who KNOWINGLY invaded a country that did not nor was in the process of attcking us?
Do you also not blame the troops on the other side, and only blame the leaders?”
Troops don’t make decisions. They follow orders. And, it’s an awful lot harder than people think for a soldier to even contemplate NOT following an order because he thinks it’s unconstitutional. No, the responsibility for the carnage of this war is right there in Bush’s lap. It’s his baby.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:07 pm>And they probably paid less for them
> than you and I did with our tax dollars.
Probably… Blackwater has to get thier markup from somewhere…nice to know that Blackwater IS giving material support to a terrorist group…because our government says they are..and we all know our government wouldnt lie about something as important as
TERROOR
TERROOOOR
TERRROOOOOORRRR!
September 25th, 2007 at 7:08 pm“we can finds friends elsewhereâ€
http://freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=50171
hmmm.. so if its not iran, who is he looking to buddy up with..
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — September 25, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
Try China and Russia.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:40 pmthe insurgents in Iraq have more US made weapons than our own troops do.
From Mondays Newshour on PBS:
Talking about the M-16, which our troops use in Iraq….
They’re right exactly where they were when we gave them the M-16 in 1960. They haven’t advanced an inch.
Meanwhile, the competition, …., the Soviet-designed automatic Kalashnikov AK-47, is in its third generation, as the AK-74.
The M-16, it turns out, is still plagued with problems it experienced from the outset. A finicky device, it has jammed from the jungles of Vietnam to the deserts of Iraq, the suburbs of northern Virginia.
So the Kalashnikov is the weapon of choice by insurgents in Iraq. As the Viet Nam War era saying goes…Kalashnikov “fires when filthy”
September 25th, 2007 at 7:54 pmBush with fingers in his ears, “I’m ignoring, uh, I can’t hear you!”
Don’t tell the Bushies what they don’t wanna hear. You’re already targeted for replacement, Nouri.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:07 pmYou know, I would really like to see Congress make Bush PROVE that Iran is meddling in Iraq. So far, no one has seen any proof. The only proof we have is what our government tells us and we all know how reliable that is!
And why aren’t we condemning Saudi Arabia for funneling all that money to the Sunni insurgents? They are killing Americans too. Just because Saudi Arabia didn’t actually give them the weapons, they are still guilty by giving them the money to buy weapons. And the sad thing about it is that they are probably buying American weapons on the black market.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:08 pmSorry Chocolate Jesus, but this picture is more than a week old. I blogged about the Iran/Iraq partnership back on Sept 12, 2006 which is when the picture was taken.
Iran and Iraq……Making Like Friends
But, your point is still valid. Iran and Iraq are buddies.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:11 pmWhy don’t you blame the troops, when they are the ones doing the ACTUAL killing?
When a mob boss hires a hit man whose does the ACTUAL killing, do you not blame the hit man also?
Sorry, but your analysis is full of holes. There is one big difference. The soldier enlists in the military and from that day on is honor bound to follow the orders of their commanders. Whereas with a hit man and the mob boss, the hit man is free to walk away or is free to not take the assignment. Our soldiers don’t have that kind of freedom.
BTW, I’m sure the righties would be delighted to seeing you compare our military brass to mob bosses.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:15 pm