Pacification?

When we read this, we assume that Bush is not entirely happy with the performance of the Iraqi government: ...Instead, Mr. Bush acknowledged “a certain level of frustration” with the Iraqi government’s failure to unify its warring ethnic factions. His comments at a meeting of North American leaders in Canada came just hours after the top American diplomat in Baghdad, Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, called political progress in Iraq “extremely disappointing” and warned that United States support for the Maliki government did not come with a “blank check.” Democratic senator Carl Levin also decided to open his big mouth, saying that Iraqi leader Maliki should quit, much to the chagrin of experts on the region. Hillary Clinton also saw fit to speak out against Maliki: "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." I thought she was supposed to be the suave one... More interesting, however, is this quote from the original article: Mr. Bush is unlikely to refer to Mr. Maliki in Wednesday’s speech, White House officials say; rather, he will use it to cast the war in the broader, long-term context of American foreign involvement in Asia. In the speech, Mr. Bush will draw parallels between the current commitment to Iraq and sustained American involvement in Japan and South Korea, which produced thriving democratic allies of the United States. No comments about Maliki by Bush on Wednesday, eh? Let's fast-forward to the referenced Wednesday, where Bush gave this speech for the VFW in Missouri: ...Iraq's leaders are once again defying the terrorists and pessimists by completing work on a democratic constitution ... It’s not up to the politicians in Washington, D.C., to say whether he will remain in his position. That is up to the Iraqi people, who now live in a democracy and not a dictatorship Where might this change of heart have originated? Perhaps this article will shed some light on the question: At a news conference in Syria today (Wednesday), Mr. Maliki reacted angrily to the calls by American politicians for the Parliament to replace him, calling the demands “discourteous” — a particularly strong insult in a culture where pride and personal relationships are paramount. He said, as he has before, that no one outside Iraq had any right to impose timetables or benchmarks on the Iraqi government, and that if Americans withdrew their support, his government could find another patron less to their liking, such as Syria or Iran. Politicking all the way. Talk tough about disappointing progress and no "blank checks", but when Maliki pushes back, with even the audacity to mention Syria and Iran, presidential speech writers jumped though hoops to make sure support for "Iraq's leaders" appeared in the address. It also doesn't hurt that this support helps to make prominent Democrats (Clinton, Levin) look even stupider than they currently do (assuming that's even possible) after their calls for Maliki's resignation. I won't even dignify the commentary regarding Cambodia with a response. If Bush thinks that our leaving - not our meddling - allowed for the rise of the Khmer Rouge, perhaps he needs to re-examine the historical record. Maybe history buff Karl Rove could give him a lesson.