January 4, 2007

President Bush will nominate a Muslim to represent the United States at the U.N.

ABC News reports:
[Zalmay] Khalilzad has been U.S. ambassador to Iraq since June 2005. He is the highest ranking Muslim in the U.S. government and one of the few officials at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad fluent in Arabic.

A consummate dealmaker, Khalilzad played an active role trying to push the Iraqi government toward political reconciliation. Khalilzad's efforts aliented [sic] some in the Shia-dominated Iraqi government who complained that Khalilzad was biased in favor of Iraq's Sunnis. Khalilzad is a Sunni Muslim.

19 comments:

alphie said...

He also played an active role into trying to get America to invade Iraq before 9/11.

Sigh...another neocon fails up...

Nick said...

It'll be interesting to see the Democrats complain about a muslim being in that position without looking bad.

AJ Lynch said...

It'll be interesting to see how the MSM downplays the suspense leading up to heretofore unequaled absotively huge historic moment when the "UN ambassador-in-waiting- a real honest to God diversity bringing Muslim" is sworn in and just becomes a plain old ambasador. Wonder if he will have as many galas as the speaker-in-waiting? And will the invitations be on earth-friendly paper?

ShadyCharacter said...

Nick, just assume that the leftists will do what they do to black republicans. Expect a neologism any day now along the lines of "oreo" or "twinkie"...

hdhouse said...

what about Brownie??? or Jeff Gannon?

Oh the injustice. Ohhh the humanity.

Wait...humanity...manity....Sean.....Sean Hannity. Wow. What a Rush.

Gerry said...

I am sure that somehow in hdhouse's mind Jeff Gannon, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh are somehow relevant, and that in hdhouse's mind that comment is extremely witty and biting.

I just am not sure of how a mind could think that way.

Anonymous said...

Is it only me, or does hdhouse appear to be reverting to his norm after an unusual couple of days of lucidity?

Too Many Jims said...

As long as he gets sworn in on a bible I am ok with it.

Sanjay said...

Ick. Khalilzad has struck me time and again, the past many months, as a godsend: someone whose read on and voice in the political situation in Iraq was giving the administration more chances than it deserves, and sustaining what hope remains for a good political solution in Iraq. I hate to see him leave that position. I can imagine him wanting out, but I doubt that this administration will appoint anyone nearly so competent to replace him in Iraq.

PatCA said...

Am I being overly sensitive, or did it strike anyone else as a bit...chauvinistic to refer to him as a great "deal maker"? Sounds like oh, those Arab wheeler dealers!

hdhouse said...

Nick said...
It'll be interesting to see the Democrats complain about a muslim being in that position without looking bad."

Right right far right Nick. Something on the order of that fruitcake GOP rep who was screaming about the Muslim Rep from Minnesota...

God you guys are awful. What a moronic post.

Al Maviva said...

Only in Ashcroft's...er, I mean Gonzales' and Bush's AmeriKKKa could this happen.

You dog-touching infidels aren't satisfied with sending Muslims to Gitmo for no reason, now you think you can send the Muslims to Turtle Bay without giving them a day in court first, without any evidence or criminal charges? I swear it by Grabthar's hammer, this impudence shall not go unpunished...

tiggeril said...

No one ever answered my question as to why we can't have people swear on a copy of the Constitution rather than a religious tome.

Anonymous said...

Please, not another robot from the AEI. When will this ever end???

hdhouse said...

Gerry said...
I am sure that somehow in hdhouse's mind Jeff Gannon, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh are somehow relevant, and that in hdhouse's mind that comment is extremely witty and biting.

I just am not sure of how a mind could think that way."

Funny. I've been wondering about our current president for 5-6 years now. did't Quayle say about bush "its a terrible thing to loose one's mind"..he did mean bush didn't he...or was he talking about neo-cons who post such twittle on here.

Anonymous said...

Tiggeril wrote: "No one ever answered my question as to why we can't have people swear on a copy of the Constitution rather than a religious tome."

It is a historical matter. Our founding fathers based the constitution in part on their understanding of God and man as found in the Bible. It is that whole "endowed by their Creator" thing. So it is appropriate that the religious tome that helped to inspire the revoloution and constitution be used in the swearing in of people who promise to uphold it.

Trey

MadisonMan said...

and one of the few officials at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad fluent in Arabic.

It strikes me as unfortunate that there aren't more speakers of Arabic at the US Embassy. But maybe the others aren't fluent.

Molon_Labe_Lamp said...

I agree that for a few days HDhouse's posts were not only readable but agreeable.

Sigh.

Ever read "Flowers for Algernon"?

hdhouse said...

TMink said...

It is a historical matter. Our founding fathers based the constitution in part on their understanding of God and man as found in the Bible. It is that whole "endowed by their Creator" thing. So it is appropriate that the religious tome that helped to inspire the revoloution and constitution be used in the swearing in of people who promise to uphold it."

Lifeless fool springs to mind but I digress. READ nitwit. "endowed by their creator" NOT THE. It was intended to demonstrate that each and every man may have his or her own personal belief as to their origins and who do thank or blame. IT intentionally doesn't have anything to do with religion and particularly the bible.

Geeeze.