IRAQI THROWS BOTH SHOES AT GEORGE BUSH AT NEWS CONFERENCE

An Iraqi journalist threw both shoes at George Bush today at an Iraqi news conference in Baghdad. Both shoes missed, but they came very close to hitting the American president.

Hitting someone with shoes is especially meaningful to Arabs. it signifies scorn and contempt.

In contrast to the obsequious treatment accorded Bush by Talibani and al Maliki, the shoe throwing signifies that many Iraqis hold George Bush in lowest regard. Many Americans can relate to this.

U.S. MILITARY ENTERS FIGHT AGAINST MILITIAS, SHOWS BUSH'S CLAIMS TO BE FALSE

For all of George Bush's triumphant nonsense on how the Iraqi Army is taking it upon itself to fight the "criminal" elements in Basra and throughout the rest of Iraq, we learn today from The Washington Post that the U.S. Army has taken over the fighting.

Sudarsan Raghavan and Sholnn Freeman report:

"U.S. forces in armored vehicles battled Mahdi Army fighters Thursday in the vast Shiite stronghold of Sadr City and military officials said Friday that U.S. aircraft bombed militant positions in the southern city of Basra, as the American role in a campaign against party-backed militias appeared to expand. Iraqi army and police units appeared to be largely holding to the outskirts of the Sadr City fighting, as American troops took the lead.

"Four U.S. Stryker armored vehicles were seen in Sadr City by a Washington Post correspondent, one of them engaging Mahdi Army militiamen with heavy fire. The din of American weapons, along with the Mahdi Army's AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades, was heard through much of the day. U.S. helicopters and drones buzzed overhead.

"The clashes suggested that American forces were being drawn more deeply into a broad offensive that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, launched in the southern city of Basra on Tuesday, saying death squads, criminal gangs and rogue militias were the targets. The Mahdi Army of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite rival of Maliki, appeared to have taken the brunt of the attacks; fighting spread to many southern cities and parts of Baghdad."

So much for the Bush spin that the surge was allowing Iraqis themselves to maintain civil society and the rule of law. The whole offensive by the Iraqi Army against the Mahdi Army in Basra was flawed and poorly thought out. It might cause the whole of Iraq to break out into civil war. Furthermore, lots of personnel in the Iraqi Army are themselves Shiites and have relatives in Basra. How can they possibly be expected to fight and kill their own relatives and co-religionists? We all know Bush and Cheney pressured Al Maliki to begin military action against the Sadr militias in Basra. Maliki and the Iraqi Army are merely surrogates for Bush and the U.S. military.

Write Raghavan and Freeman:

"As President Bush told an Ohio audience that Iraq was returning to "normalcy," administration officials in Washington held meetings to assess what appeared to be a rapidly deteriorating security situation in many parts of the country.

"American forces were involved in approximately a dozen firefights on Thursday in Baghdad alone, with fighting spread across six neighborhoods, according to information released by the U.S. military Friday morning. U.S. ground patrols in areas like Kadhamiyah and New Baghdad repeatedly came under attack from small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades, responding with their own weapons and in one case calling in helicopter support. In that incident, the helicopter fired a hellfire missile into a group of militants that had attacked U.S. troops manning a checkpoint in Kadhamiyah, killing three of them. When the militants renewed their attack, the helicopter returned and killed 10 more using a 30mm gun, according to a U.S. military release.
In all, U.S. troops killed 42 in Thursday's Baghdad fighting, a sign of their growing engagement in the Iraqi-designed offensive."

CHENEY SAYS U.S. "LIBERATED" IRAQ PEOPLE, DOESN'T MENTION 600,000+ IRAQI CIVILIANS KILLED AS A RESULT

So Vice President Dick Cheney is in Baghdad holding classified briefings with U.S. military generals. Apparently the VP sees lots of progress in Iraq, even extending to the Al Maliki government's political development.

The BBC reports on Cheney's trip:

"After a meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, Mr Cheney said it was significant to be in Iraq five years after a campaign "that liberated the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein's tyranny and launched them on the difficult but historic road to democracy"."

Cheney's statement shows how hard these guys try to justify the immoral war they started some five years ago tomorrow. Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq, but they claim they did it only to liberate the people of Iraq. Even Hitler said the same thing when he invaded Poland. And Stalin repeated the same shibboleth when he invaded the Baltics.

Of course, what Cheney omits to mention is the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by American bombs and bullets in the course of this invasion. I wonder what families of Iraqi children who have been killed, shot, blinded and maimed would say if they heard George Bush or Dick Cheney try to justify their military invasion by talking about "liberation"?

FORTHCOMING VISIT OF IRANIAN AHMADINEJAD TO BAGHDAD UPSETS U.S.

Juan Cole points me to this important story in Gulf News by Basil Adas on a forthcoming visit by Iranian president Ahmadinejad to Baghdad. Perhaps a purpose of Bush's visit to Iraq today is to convince Al Maliki not to host the Iranian president disliked by Bush. Apparently, Ahmadinejad would like to reciprocate Maliki's recent visit to Teheran by meeting Maliki in Baghdad.

Writes Adas in Gulf News:

"Sources in Dawa Party, headed by Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, revealed that Americans have notified Al Maliki about their reservations towards Ahmadinejad's expected visit."

One of the intended consequences of this forthcoming meeting will be to show the Americans that Iraq is a sovereign state that conducts foreign policy on its own initiatives, and not a mere province of the United States. Also for Iran, it is a way to throw sand in the eyes of Bush.

Adas reports:

"Sattar Al Khalidi, a researcher in Iranian affairs, told Gulf News: "Al Maliki's recent visit to Iran was supposed to touch upon all matters concerning the two countries but there is an urgent Iranian desire for Ahmadinejad's visit to Baghdad and I think they seek to provoke Americans out of it. As for some elements in Iraqi government, they believe that Ahmadinejad's visit is a moral achievement of Al Maliki's government apart from being an irritation to the Americans.""

AL MALIKI RESENTS COMMENTS OF CLINTON AND LEVIN

The BBC reports today that prime minister Nouri Al Maliki has continued to respond to the criticisms of Senators Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin that Maliki is not doing his job and should be replaced.

"He [Maliki] said the Democratic senators were acting as if Iraq was "their property" and that they should "come to their senses" and "respect democracy". "

Imagine if you were Maliki and found American senators calling for your ouster. I feel sure we all would resent the "foreign" interference of Clinton and Levin. Is Iraq a "democracy" the way George Bush likes to say, or is it merely a colony of the United States? If it is an independent nation with its own prime minister and parliament, the intrusions by Levin and Clinton must be seen for what they are - unwanted meddlings by American senators who believe Iraq should do and act as they say.

Shame on Clinton and Levin.

JUAN COLE: RUMORS SWIRL OF POSSIBLE MILITARY COUP IN IRAQ

Juan Cole writes today that he is hearing rumors of some Iraqis planning for a military coup to topple the government of Nouri Al Maliki in Iraq.

"A rumor is circulating among well-connected and formerly high-level Iraqi bureaucrats in exile in places like Damascus that a military coup is being prepared for Iraq. I received the following from a reliable, knowledgeable contact. There is no certitude that this plan can or will be implemented. That it is being discussed at high levels seems highly likely."

This is an amazing development. That's why with all the turmoil and internecine fighting in Iraq, and now with these rumors of a possible military take-over, senators like Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton should refrain from calling for the replacement of prime minister Nouri Al Maliki. First, members of the United States government have no business dictating what should happen to the government of Iraq. And second, if a military coup takes place, these senators will be blamed for the ensuing uprising and violence, as will the United States.

Cole goes on to give the reports he is hearing:

"There is serious talk of a military commission (majlis `askari) to take over the government. The parties would be banned from holding positions, and all the ministers would be technocrats, so to speak. . . [The writer indicates that attempts have been made to recruit cabinet members from the ranks of expatriate technocrats.]

"The six-member board or commission would be composed on non-political former military personnel who are presently not part of the government OR the military establishment, such as it is in Iraq at the moment. It is said that the Americans are supporting this behind the scenes.

"The plan includes a two-year period during which political parties would not be permitted to be part of the government, but instead would prepare and strengthen the parties for an election which would not have lists, but real people running for real seats. The two year period would be designed to take control of security and restore infrastructure. . . .

"[I]t is another [desperate plan], but one which many many Iraqis will support, since they are sick of their country being pulled apart by the "imports" - Maliki, Allawi, Jaafari et al. The military group is composed of internals, people who have the goal of securing the country even at the risk of no democracy, so they say."