Case in point: Barbour, Griffith is a Republican firm. No doubt about it. Look at the staff. But its highly paid push to replace Maliki who is veering wildly off the reservation has been picked up without skipping a beat by Democrat neocon Hillary Clinton, who has enthusiastically endorsed the replacement of Maliki. Quoth Hillary: "I share Senator Levin's hope that the Iraqi parliament will replace Prime Minister Maliki with a less divisive and more unifying figure when it returns in a few weeks."
Let's see here: in recent weeks Maliki has reached out to both Iran and Syria to look for solutions to the incomprehensibly murderous civil war/counter-occupation in Iraq, and for these efforts to quell the sectarian and anti-occupation violence (in other words to secure Iraq so that American troops can be safely brought home and victory legitimately declared) he is rewarded with open calls for his replacement with one who embraces the neo-con agenda of expanding the war into Iran and Syria. So who is against "success" in Iraq?
They write to Congress saying "don't you dare interfere with the success of our soldiers in Iraq." Two questions: what is success and who is interfering?
The two parties do NOT disagree about US policy in the Middle East (or Darfur or elsewhere for that matter). The Party has total unity, but for Paulian and Kucinichian flies buzzing noisily past...
