Yes, precisely. Maliki is a stooge, but that doesn't mean he's an idiot. He knows that he cannot remain in power if he is seen by Iraqis as a tool of the U.S., he knows Iraqis regard the open-ended occupation as both a burden and an insult, and in particular, he knows that if he does not definitively align himself with ending it, the Sadrist movement will overwhelm him. We aren't told this by the corporate media in the U.S., but the Shiite population is very unhappy with the collaborationist government, and in Sadr City, there is deep rage which is restrained only by Muqtada al Sadr's orders to refrain from violence.

Al Sadr is simply waiting to gather Iraq into his own hands. He will probably do so eventually no matter what, but Maliki knows it's a dead cert if he doesn't start looking more like an Iraqi nationalist.

Let's be honest, here. The whole left-o-sphere whined that Maliki was a puppet government installed by the Bush Administration.

"Al Maliki, Bush's puppet in Iraq, vowed today to fight to the end!"
From talkingpointsmemo:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/bushmaliki-the-last-two-optimi.php

Perhaps you, yourself didn't iterate it, but you nor anyone else stood up and called any of these left wing sites out on it.

The arguments agasint Maliki's legitimacy are irrelvant, because they are arguments from the other side of the present issue. Maliki is a stooge of the administration, but even the administration's stooges can't support the administration on an indefinite occupation of Iraq.

Traveler - read my comment. And rea's. The contradiction you perceive does not exist. Maliki's career as a tool is over. That doesn't mean he never had one.

Maliki is/was a tool of the Administration, but here are crucial differences which make his thoughts more relevant than those of John Bolton:
1) What with living in Iraq, getting info on his own countrymen in their own language, he probably has a better undertanding of Iraqi public opinion than anyone in Washington could ever get
2) He has skin in the game. Lots. American leaders who misread public opinion get low poll ratings and corporate lobbying positions - Iraqi leaders have in recent times been tried and shot (Qasim) or tried and hanged by a baying mob of enemies (Saddam). Therefore he is more likely to try hard and reflect the public will, especially if he thinks he's in serious danger of losing his 100k American bodyguards

It's possible that I had an opinion on Maliki's stoogedom in recent months, though I can't recall one.

can't you try to make a little bit of a stronger claim than this? do you never read or talk to liberals other than yourself?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/poll/2008/0308opinion.pdf

Rather, we know, from polling, that the majority of the Iraqi people want us out.

not exactly. in march 38% of respondents in the abc wanted US troops to "leave now," 35% for them to "remain until security is restored." i'm sure no one in iraq wants the US to be there but that doesn't mean they want us to leave immediately. anyway we don't "know, from polling, that the majority of the Iraqi people want us out," or at least not from this poll.

What all this shows is how horrible Obama has been with his diplomacy by sound bite.

Regardless of what Malaki said to der Speigel, it is not a governmental position taken by two states during a real diplomatic discussion.

It may shock you conscience that some politicians say one thing publicly and another during negotiations.

All Maliki said was 16 months sounds like a good number but so does more or less, which could mean 10 months - which Obama opposes, or could mean 24 months, which Obama opposes, or anything in between.

It is no difference then Obama saying he plans to send 10,000 more American troops to Afghanistan, thus undercutting our efforts to get other Nato countries to send more troops. Can you imagine trying to convince the Europeans NOW to send more when all they will say is, WHY SHOULD WE, WHEN OBAMA WINS HE'S ALREADY COMMITTED TO SENDING 10,000 AMERICANS. Those 10,000 could have been someone elses troops, now we are stuck with it because he opened his mouth.

And can you imagine trying to get people motivated in Iraq after Obama is elected with his hard and fast 16 month and were gone edict. Just who is going to want to lift a finger in the meantime doing anything if we already committed to abandoning them.

Whose going to go engage groups of Iran back militias
or Al Qeada who start moving into outlying areas as we are departing?

Traveler - read my comment. And rea's. The contradiction you perceive does not exist. Maliki's career as a tool is over. That doesn't mean he never had one.

You can't have it both ways. Just the simple fact that he doesn't follow orders demonstrates that he is not a puppet.

What you do is what the left always does and that's redefine the noun to suit their needs.

"Yes a stooge, but one that stands up to Bush"

Can't you see how ignorant that appears?