Robert: What books are those on the shelves behind these two glum "gentlemen"?

I'll bet they are interpretations of the Koran, etc.

In America we like to photograph politicians in front of law books, usually reports of court cases put out by West Publishing Company, because they are common, they look so nice, and they photograph well.

What are these? And do they have a significance in this particular photo?

Posted by: texan at October 31, 2006 9:10 AM

Texan,

I can't make them out. When I enlarge the photo, the titles become too pixilated to see.

Sorry not to be able to help.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at October 31, 2006 9:14 AM

The logical conclusion of this photo is that Iraq's government is against us like Iran's.

Battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200, occupation deaths are over 70 per month on average.

Coalition Casualties

From the above:

Military Fatalities: By Time Period

News
Current Time in Baghdad: 5:13:50 PM

Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
5 664 22 16 702 2.19 320
4 715 13 18 746 2.35 318
3 579 25 27 631 2.92 216
2 718 27 58 803 1.89 424
1 140 33 0 173 4.02 43
Total 2816 120 119 3055 2.31 1321

Time period 1 was the battle phase, so deaths were 173.

We are building up a government that is against us in Iraq, so our 70 deaths per month are working against us.

If we invade Iran using the army in Iraq, we can work for something for us, to denuke Iran. That puts our army in Iraq on the Pakistan border.

That gives us supply to our army in Afghanistan.

We can then blockade Pakistan with India's help to force them to give up their nukes, subs, and cruise missiles, and bin Laden.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at October 31, 2006 9:20 AM

Those are all the Western children's stories that have been Islamicized, you know...Little Red Riding Fatima, Pinocchiakbar, Huck Abdullah, The Three Little Haram Farm Animals, Aishalocks and the Three Bears.

Seems al-Maliki has chosen which side he's supporting. Pull the troops up to Kurdistan and help them build their wall to keep the Shia and Sunnis out. Carpet bomb Sadr City. Let the civil war go full force and clean up after.

Posted by: bigwhiteinfidel at October 31, 2006 9:24 AM

Tweedledee and tweedledum. What a lovely couple.

I think Iraq should be partitioned into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish states. Let's see what happens then. The three groups can't stand each other anyway so giving them their own states might actually be incentive for them to live in a somewhat more civilized fashion.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 31, 2006 9:25 AM

How do we win this war if the commander whose making the military decisions is Prime Minister Maliki?

The article purports to show that this decison was made and carried out without consultation with any military command.

This is a serious mistake and puts our coalition troops at a much greater risk.

What are the benefits of this decision if any?

How many other military decisions has Maliki been able to make without any or little command staff input?

What are the US generals attitudes on these decisions?

Has the US allowed and deferred to much control to Maliki while our American and coalition troops are still fighting a war there?

If some of his decisions are found to lead to more US troops deaths will the command staff and the President hold him accountable if it can be proven?

Just asking

Posted by: Mackie at October 31, 2006 10:06 AM

I bet those books are illustrated biographies of Mo.

Posted by: TheOmegaMan at October 31, 2006 11:29 AM

DEMOCRACY (AND GOODNESS) WILL FAIL IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Was it Abraham Lincoln who said that a democratic government can only succeed if the people governed are good, or was it Alexis deTocqueville? I think for this reason democracy will fail in the Middle East.

When you have government of the people, by the people and for the people, if the people are all raving lunatics oppressed by some demonic ideology or religion, the leader of that government will have NO CHOICE but to reflect those lunatic views in government policies.

We ousted Saddam, a secular ruler who was a tyrant in his own right, and replaced it with a democracy. However, in our good-natured naivete we expected a government that represents the desires of the majority of Iraqi men and women to be one that seeks peace. But built into Islam and the teachings and actions of Muhammed is the need to serve Allah by conquering and subduing the physical world.

Expect to see more ugly pictures of the Iraqi Shi'ite leaders mugging w/ the ugly Irani Shi'ite leaders, and forming a bigger, uglier Shi'ite block that seeks to conquer the West.

The only way for democracy to work in the Middle East is for Arabs to abandon the evil dictates of Muhammed. Period.

Posted by: Tookson at October 31, 2006 11:35 AM

It was at the time of Saddams downfall, when I knew absolutely sweet FA (that is Fanny Adams, incidently) about islam, and I chuckled to myself. Foolish Iraqis, I thought, as soon as they are relieved of one tyranny, they seek to impose a new one upon each other.

I guess that most people knew sweet FA about islam back then, but I also guess that they figured there was enough secularised (if that be an English word) and educated Iraqis to warrant a go at a bit of freedom. I suspect those men and women don't blame George Dubya for trying, and nor do I. I blame the evil bastards who love killing instead of shopping.

As for the photo, I think that they look suitably upset in each others company. If there was huggin'-and-a-kissin' then I would be worried.

Posted by: FREE LEE at October 31, 2006 12:19 PM

This countermands the American directive and the cordon which was intended to help American soldiers find the Iraqi-born translator who may have been kidnapped.

Again and again Maliki has shown an indifference to American desires. He was preparing some months ago to offer amnesty to those “insurgents” who had killed "only" American soldiers, until an outcry in this country forced the Bush Administration to tell him he couldn’t do it. He expects the Americans to fight and die for his regime, a regime like the previous one prepared to soak the Americans for all they are worth, all the billions they can provide (and how many former high Iraqi officials siphoned off how many billions, paid for by American taxpayers most of whom will never know the high life now to be enjoyed, for the rest of their lives, by those “Iraqi” patriots who made out like gangbusters on American aid, and are now living it up, outside Iraq, or in Europe, possibly attending the same defiles on the Avenue Montaigne as Suha Arafat) up).

He is not, and cannot be, a “friend of America.” He is willing to endure the American presence only so long as it strengthens him, and weakens the Sunni insurgents. And the Sunnis, in turn, or those not in the immediate “insurgency,” may now want the Americans to stay for the same reasons – in order to protect them from the full force of the Shi’a. That’s it. That the Adminstration refuses to understand this, and keeps making policy based on hope, and on all the Unrepresentative Men (Chalabi, Allawi, Makiya, and the tiny group of semi-decent mid-level former Iraqi officers who have unduly impressed American officers, and thus lead them to all kinds of rosy misconceptions and hopes, but are in fact the rare exceptions, not the rule) that were in exile, or have tried with this or that group of soldiers or policemento do the impossible in Iraq, which is to make them drop their sectarian and ethnic and even tribal allegiances. Simply cannot be done.

Why is this hard to understand? What is so complicated about it?

Why is Maliki, why are any Iraqis, allowed to interfere with American military decisions undertaken to protect or recover its soldiers? Why, for that matter, did Bush ever say that "we will leave" when "the Iraqis" tell us "they are ready to have us leave." When, in the history of the American government, did a President say that "we will leave when the locals are good and ready to have us leave." An incredible attitude, a complete abdication of responsibilty. And if it not the "Iraqis" then it is "the generals" who will tell me about what tactics to employ.

But what if it is not the "tactics" that concern the generals, but the strategy? What if "the genrals" wish to tell Bush the one thing he will not let them tell him -- that he has the wrong policy in Iraq, that we should be exploiting these ethnic and sectarian tensions, not trying to end them. Of course they won't. They haven't been permitted to think for themselves in this area, haven't allowed themselves to learn about Islam and to realize that the "war on terror" is a dangerous misnomer, or to think about the other instruments of war -- propaganda, counter-Da'wa, stopping the demograpohic conquest of the countries of the Western alliance, of NATO -- no, this one cannot expect of them. But one can expect that the way in which Bush has palmed off responsibilities on both the Iraqis and on the American generals, but not permitted any questioning by the latter of his policy, permitting only advice on the tactics by which his stated aims (that "victory" we hear so much about, that damned "victory" in the "war on terror"), ludicrous and self-defeating and wasteful and impossible of achievement as they are, are supposed to be attained.

A nightmare.

Posted by: Hugh at October 31, 2006 12:46 PM

"war on terror" is a dangerous misnomer

In a speech today John Reid stated that the causes of terrorism were Poverty and Injustice.

Interestingly, he compared the struggle against terror with the one against Nazism.

Those poor Nazis, suffering all that poverty and injustice at the hands of those jews.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6102508.stm

Posted by: FREE LEE at October 31, 2006 1:18 PM

Maliki's ability to make tactical decisions impacting U.S. troops in the field is a horror show. Imagine having a child or spouse wounded or kia as the result of "General" Maliki's decision!!
1.) Americaningermany - I have yet to recover from the photo of Dubya holding hands with his Saudi pal!
2.) Mackie - Right on the money!
3.) Americaningermany - In my experience, the only individual more dangerous than someone who describes themselves as "just a dumb blonde" is the "simple country lawyer".
4.) American in germany -Mmmmm... mini-skirts!

Posted by: MP at October 31, 2006 3:49 PM

The photo is not that surprising to me. Instead of the Iranian PM. it could well have been Imam El sadr. What would have been the difference? NONE.

I am afraid to say that my prediction to the end of the conflict in Iraq will ultimately lead to a weak Iraqi satelite state of the great Iran/Syrian hegemony of the region. We might as well include Lebanon. Iraq will be mostly under the influence of Iran due to the Shiite majority. Saddam Hussein's brural Bath party rule served as a buffer between the two Alawite state of Iran and Syria. It looks like the US intervention in Iraq and the demise of Saddam's rule played politically well in the very hands of the people we are supposed to be weary of.

The end result will be a beligerent geo-political belt extending from Iran to Syria. By including Pakistan and Afghanistan we might as well have on our hand a proto Persian empire that will lead the Muslim world into the next phase of its gloomy glorious path.

I cannot forsee any prospect for renewed peace efforts with Israel. That's a disaster waiting to happen.

Posted by: sammish at October 31, 2006 5:22 PM

Sammish - You make a strong case for a future that must terrify any Israeli willing to give the prospect you describe a good hard look. Fasten your seatbelts, especially after the dismal IDF performance this past summer.

Posted by: MP at October 31, 2006 5:32 PM

Just think folks....all that taxpayers money....wait I hear a flushing sound....

Great Job King George! If the Dems had a any brains (which they do not) they would use this in every campaign poster in America. If you want to really attack Bush this photo says it all.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at October 31, 2006 7:10 PM

"But what if it is not the "tactics" that concern the generals, but the strategy? What if "the genrals" wish to tell Bush the one thing he will not let them tell him -- that he has the wrong policy in Iraq" Hugh

Alas all those generals have been fired or sent to "Alaska". They are NOT in command in Iraq now. They are yes men and Rummie is now running the war just like he is running the CIA by removing them from the loop in terms of intelligence. Bush does not listen even to his own wife if the story is true so this is were we are. Just accept it for the next two years. We will spend billions more. We will loose perhaps another 1,000 or so brave troops. Then hopefully we will get a leader who will split the country up declare vistory and get out. Perhaps we can "pay off" the Kurds to allow us to leave a few military bases to monitor the enemy and also allow us to claim we did "lose the war". In any case this is our destiny for the next two years. Now I know what the Auzzie, British and Allied troops felt on the Beaches of Gallipoli. Depressing is it not?

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at October 31, 2006 7:26 PM

What books are those on the shelves behind these two glum "gentlemen"?

Those books behind them contain no new thoughts.
Just endless commentaries. Not interpretations.
Islam is following the same groove that was originally traced and Muslims take pride in that.
There is nothing like a Renaissance or Enlightment in Islam.
So a person may read all those books, including those joyous fellows, without ending up any wiser. Just better programmed to follow the old stale rules.

Jesus said: "You brood of vipers..."

Posted by: rocky at October 31, 2006 9:25 PM

All part of the plan to empower a nuclear 'Axis of Evil' soas to threaaten all our facist regime 'good neighbours' in the Gulf and Middle East.

The United States has done an exemplary job of taking down the one powerful leader in the area that could control both Iran and the mullahocracy.

Now all the West has to do is get their troops either kicked out or forced out of Iraq and the US arms bazaar can once again go into full production.

Hello expensive high technology defence and offensive production and sales, goodbye to offshoring of US high tech production.

Pure genius.

Oh, for the record, when I say 'pure genius, I am not referring to that retard in the White House, I am referring to the machine that got him elected and his handlers.

CD Baric

Posted by: blazar-jet at November 1, 2006 5:55 AM

MP,

What is going to happen in the Middle East in he next decade is what everyone is hoping wil be averted by asserting that the region will be stable, democratic and peaceful. I am not sure who has to wake up from this naive dreamworld: the US government or the world at large. The unavoidable will happen. All Out War. What Saddam called the Mother of all Battle, refering to his dismal showing of his fake mighty army in the first golf war and his lasted debacle.

I am not afraid of the IDF and the Tsahal. They will defend Israel and destroy the enemy. Their lastest performance in Lebanon was due mostly to the guerilla war and hide and hit tactics of the Hezbollah. That is not a war in conventional terms. All wars were fought in the open with all the parties' armements and tactics at their disposal. The loser always capitulates, makes peace and life goes on (i.e., Japan, Germany).

I am afraid that the beligerent islamic states are not capable of winning an all out war and they know it very well. They are buying time to hit Israel hard and fast even if it takes a partial destruction of their own state. I am saying partial because of the eventual creation of the new Islamic geo-political belt I alluded to in my previous comment.

I really do not understand what will it take for the world to realise that Iran/Syria/new Iraq and include Palestinian Hamas and the scheeming pseudo-friendly states of Saudia Arabia, Egypt and to a lesser extent Jordan, are in the collision course to destroy Israel based on what their religious beliefs.

A recent MEMRY clip showed a deadhead Lebanese imam in a large conference setting (not a mosque) full of political leaders, dignitaries and imams stating a hadith from their wonderful prophet: " Judgement day will only come when the muslims fight the jews and kill them" adding "I am refering to a promise of a new word to come by proceeding to the final promise when the state of Israel will be eliminated, allah willing."

I do not know what is unclear or misunderstood about these statements from the allmighty dear prophet or the all knowing grand imam. They are suicidal statements. I think of them by uisng the analogy of a suicide bomber but now instead, it is the islamic states that are taking the duties and preparing themselves for an All Out Suicide. Do we need to analyze the statements again? Perhaps we should refer these statements to our expert linguists in the CIA or state department.

The states in the region are buying time, to create a politico-islamic hegemony with the inclusion of Iraq, allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons, missile technology, and eventually the deployment of missiles from the new Iraqi state. Think about it. Some states use and highjake other states as shealds to deploy their dismal military tactics(i.e.,case of Lebanon with Hazebollah). I can easily envision a large deployment of Iranian missiles in Iraq. Another case of state highjaking of new emerging democratic iraq. Who cares for who will pay dearly in lives and infrasturture as long as it serves a purpose of shielding the real enemy and the real intent and goal for the final promise of this obcurantist religion.

When Egypt said lately that it will be developing nuclear technology and reactors willing sold by Russia, I am not sure whether it is for protection againt other beligerent states or to instill fear of the coming doom. Guess what MP, they will say it is for alternative energy and the high demand of electricity for the growing unemployed population. It goes to show that the clash of cultures is inevitable and will come at a high cost on either side of the cultural divide. Suicidal indeed.

Posted by: sammish at November 1, 2006 10:06 AM