Obama Screws Iraqi Prime Minister

by JASmius

.....again:

Barack Obama on Monday pulled the plug on U.S. support for Iraq's controversial Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as Washington rushed arms to Kurds trying to hold back rampaging extremists.

....about which Iraq's controversial Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was warning Barack Obama at the top of his lungs from last November straight through their June blitzkrieg but was completely, contemptuously ignored.

Obama, who reluctantly last week launched U.S. air strikes in a country where he ended the U.S. war....

Apparently not.

....voiced hope that a new prime minister would begin to ease the sectarian divisions that have fueled the crisis.

The "sectarian divisions" have not "fueled the crisis".  Barack Obama is not launching useless, pinprick airstrikes because Sunni tribes are feuding with Shiite militias.  ISIS has "fueled the crisis" by invading Iraq with sixty thousand jihadist maniacs killing and massacring everything and every one in their path beyond the capability of even the Western media to embargo to spare Barack Obama the embarrassment of being primarily responsible for a foreign policy disaster that has soaked his hands in an ocean of innocent blood.

Obama said that he as well as Vice President Joe Biden called prime minister-designate Haidar al-Abadi, an erstwhile ally of Maliki who was tasked by President Fuad Masum with forming a new government.

Maliki ex machina.

Stressing his position that there is "no American military solution" to the Iraq crisis....

That explains the pinprick airstrikes.

....Obama called Abadi's nomination "a promising step."

Why?  Abadi is a Shiite, right?  And he's also Maliki's protégé, right?  And Maliki is the designated scapegoat for the totality of how Barack Obama has screwed up Iraq, right?  So what could possibly be "promising" about Abadi's nomination?

"The only lasting solution is for Iraqis to come together and form an inclusive government," Obama said, after criticism that Maliki has ruled divisively to advance Iraq's Shiite majority.

Maliki didn't start "ruling divisively to advance Iraq's Shiite majority" until after Barack Obama withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq, which was the only thing keeping all of Iraq's factions in line.  Once the U.S. was gone, Maliki had no place else to turn to prop up his weak government than his Shiite Iranian friends next store.  But Obama has to condemn Maliki for the steps Maliki was forced to take due to Obama's deliberate policy choices and pretend that Haidar al-Abadi will govern any differently than Maliki did because to do anything else would force Obama to act as George W. Bush would have, and that might just make Obama spontaneously combust.

Plus, "Shiite majority" - hello?  If Maliki has been ruling according to the will of the Iraqi majority, has he not been serving as a responsible democratic leader?  Especially since Barack Obama has been ruling against the will of the American majority for five and a half years?  But then that is precisely what Obama is criticizing Maliki for not doing.  Okay, I got it.

Maliki has called the selection of Abadi, a member of his party and fellow Shiite, a violation of the Iraqi constitution carried out with U.S. support.

They would know.

Obama — who did not mention Maliki by name once in his remarks — said he "pledged our support" to Abadi in his telephone call and called on the designated prime minister "to form a new cabinet as quickly as possible."

Uh-oh.  Run, Abadi, run!  While you still can!