Can We Trade Bush/Cheney for al Maliki?
To borrow the Administration’s favorite phrase, “no one could have predicted” that the Iraqi government whose job it is to use the “breathing room” supposedly produced by the surge to achieve political reconciliation among the warring Iraqi factions would be in such disarray that the Bush Administration would be working night and day to keep the al Maliki coalition from collapsing. But now even Bush himself is expressing “frustration” and dropping broad hints that if the Iraqis wish to remove and replace al Maliki, it’s entirely up to them.
On Monday, the Boston Globe’s Farah Stockman reported on frantic efforts by Secretary Rice, Ambassador Crocker and White House aide Meghan O’Sullivan to convince enough factions to hold the al Maliki government together. And they’ve mostly failed. So on Tuesday, President Bush was explaining to everyone how leadership crises are resolved in a democracy:
“The fundamental question is, will the government respond to the demands of the people,” the President said. “And if the government doesn’t . . . respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government. That’s up to the Iraqis to make that decision, not American politicians.”
“The Iraqis will decide,” Bush insisted. “They have decided they want a constitution. They have elected members to their parliament and they will make the decisions just like democracies do.”
The wisdom of this advice is so self evident it caused Swopa to wonder if al Maliki would make an analogous suggestion to the American people, who also seem to be suffering under an unpopular, ineffective leader they’d like to dump.
Let’s face it. Americans are stuck with Bush/Cheney, because not enough Democrats believe in the Constitution. With impeachment off the table, our only hope is to trade Bush/Cheney to another country, and as Bush noted yesterday, it’s our right to get rid of him and his crowd. So I thought we could offer the Iraqis a trade: Bush/Cheney for al Maliki, with a VP to be named later. I’d throw in Hadley and Rice just to sweeten the deal, though I suspect they’d be sent to the minors. Our President is very frustrated that those contentious Iraqi factions seem incapable of dealing with each other in time of war, so maybe he could show them how he’s united America.
I realize we’d probably be getting the better deal, since al Maliki has, as far as I know, never started an aggressive war, and he would never start a war with Iran, whereas the Iraqis would be taking a risk with Cheney. I’d expect the Iraqis to give Dick a very thorough physical and mental examination before letting him play with their government. Another thing I like about al Maliki is that, unlike most of our own Senators and Presidential candidates, he believes the US should respect other countries’ sovereignty, especially Iraq’s, and he’s more than willing to talk to Iran and Syria, which would really annoy Joe Lieberman who was recently struck unbelievably dumb on the road to Damascus. So to get al Maliki I wouldn’t be adverse to throwing in some cash to help rebuild their country. If we brought the troops home, there’s about $10-12 billion a month in possible savings we could put on the negotiating table.
My guess is that with al Maliki as our President, we could probably repeal the Military Commissions Act and enact exanded SCHIP or even universal health care and start on global warming. Iraq could use Bush/Cheney to fight al Qaeda or do whatever they needed, and they would probably get that oil law passed.
Think I’m not serious? I suspect this idea is not any crazier than the imperialist ideas of those very serious people Glenn Greenwald keeps describing, and it’s definitely less crazy than what Digby found.
Update: Apparently rumors of the trade leaked out, and the White House is nixing the deal.