Report: Khalilzad out as U.S. ambassador to Iraq
posted at 2:46 pm on December 4, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, plans to leave his post and will be replaced by Ryan Crocker, the current ambassador to Pakistan, according to two officials familiar with the matter…
The United Nations ambassadorship being vacated by John Bolton, who announced today he will be leaving that post, is a job that may be open to the 55-year-old Khalilzad, according to the administration official.
The administration official said what job Khalilzad would get next was among the most hotly debated personnel matters within the government. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is considering him for deputy secretary of state or the role of her counselor, in addition to the UN post, the official said.
Would the Democrats confirm Bush’s man in Iraq for the UN job? Yeah, probably. Their line is that no one could have made things work with Chimpy in charge so, if anything, Khalilzad’s a sympathetic figure.
Here’s Crocker’s bio at Wikipedia. He certainly knows the region. I don’t know enough about him to even guess why he’d be the pick, but he won’t have as much influence as Khalilzad, who’s been described as a de facto “viceroy,” did. Which is for the best. We’re not staying much longer anyway — although things could get interesting before we go.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I have well-placed sources within the administration and they have said that Rumsfeld is on the short-list for U.N. ambassador.
Actually I don’t have sources and I made that up but I would love to see what would happen if Bush nominated Rumsfeld for the job.
I predict heads would pop off and people would spontaneously combust.
Rosetta on December 4, 2006 at 2:55 PM
When it rains, it pours.
NPP on December 4, 2006 at 3:00 PM
Here’s a picture of Ryan Crocker. He looks like he could be Jimmy Carter’s younger brother, the poor bloke.
Entelechy on December 4, 2006 at 3:21 PM
Mr. Bush looks a bit like Matt Lauer in this caption. Heh, that’ll annoy Matt!
Entelechy on December 4, 2006 at 3:26 PM
But wait, wasn’t Khalilzad the one who finessed over the Sharia elements in both the Iraqi and Afghani constitutions? You know, those parts where they kill you for converting to Christianity or any other faith insulting Islam etc.
I gotta wonder if he’s the best guy for representing America’s interests.
Iblis on December 4, 2006 at 3:43 PM
I hadn’t heard that story, Iblis, but from what I know about this guy he’s a great choice.
see-dubya on December 4, 2006 at 3:48 PM
Snowball in hell has a much better chance.
honora on December 4, 2006 at 4:15 PM
…you’re gonna have to take them blinders off, Honie.
I don’t think that Rummy’d make a good ambassador to anything or anywhere, but that’s an opinion grown from an assessment made of his character. He’s a bit of a “my way or the highway” sort of guy, and a bit too brash. When in Byzantium, do as the Byzantines do…be byzantine…that’s what we need. A schemer.
Hey! George Mitchell! For UN Ambassador *AND* to replace Khalilzad…and to replace Crocker, too!
Mitchell, Mitchell, Mitchell…everybody gets a piece of Mitchell!
How about Schumer…he’s a sneaker, poisonous little sh*t…and, he’s the party of choice for this administration lately…or knock the mothballs outta Armitage’s ears. Once again, byzantine….
Puritan1648 on December 4, 2006 at 4:50 PM
I don’t get “Honie”? My father called me “Honey”, a derivative of Honora. Don’t get Honie though. (Probably some very obvious play on words which I am not getting..)
honora on December 4, 2006 at 5:23 PM
Rhymes with Connie.
RushBaby on December 4, 2006 at 5:40 PM
…it’s a diminutive of “honora”….
Constantine is “Connie”. See a pattern?
It was capitalized this time, instead of lower case (as you spell it) because I didn’t notice and I fell back on standard English capitalization.
…for the record, I don’t call women “honey”…I don’t call under-age girls “honey” either…not even my daughter.
I also don’t use “darlin’”, “sister”, “babe”, “girl”, “baby-girl”, “lady”, or “b*tch”. Never have.
I do sometimes refer to men as “bubba”. They’re welcome to take a swing at me if they don’t like it. Pretty hard to connect, even over a broadband connection, but they’re welcome to try.
It’s a diminutive. It’s not meant as a diminishment, as when you call someone by their first name while convention requires that they refer to you as “Mr. So-and-so” or “Ms. Doohickey”. That’s demeaning.
Using a diminutive is a comradely way of coming out from behind the barriers plaintext throws up, adding a bit of personalization.
It’s used and is meant to be taken as if you were here, being to personally, wryly, joshingly. Sort of like peering through the fog of distance and bandwidth to see the person.
You’re invited to take it as its meant.
Puritan1648 on December 4, 2006 at 5:58 PM
Yeah, just two more years. Allah where do you get the idea that Bush is going to pull out? It’s amazing to me that people think Bush is just gonna give up because the Dems took Congress. It wasn’t but last week in Amman he said we weren’t headed for some kind of “graceful exit” and that we’d be there till the job was done. He’s the only person who can order us out. Baker, DNC, MSM, public opinion, none of it matters. He’s the Commander in Chief, he isn’t running again, neither is Cheney, and Iraq is the centerpiece of his strategy in the WOT. What on earth is going to compel him to withdraw outside of the Iraqis asking us to leave?
The Apologist on December 4, 2006 at 6:00 PM
Khalilzad for RNC Chair!
MayBee on December 4, 2006 at 6:05 PM
Yeah, You are right as far as that goes; but if the cut & runners in Congress get enough votes (and it will be close) they can refuse to pay for it.
LegendHasIt on December 4, 2006 at 6:08 PM
Does anyone think the Dems want that hanging around their neck for the next 20 years? They already have a weak defense reputation. Are they going to want the aftermath of American withdrawal in Iraq as solely their responsibility? Forcing the American President to surrender a war? Not a viable strategy for elections anytime soon. The GWOT is a generational conflict. If they did that they’d be booted to the electoral wilderness for 15 years.
The Apologist on December 4, 2006 at 6:46 PM
The Apologist, you are totally right. That’s not to know what he will do, but I agree that he doesn’t have to and that the dems would not force him.
They actually want the ’support for the troops’ both ways, to be against the war, to please the Left and to be ‘for the troops’ to please the rest of us.
Entelechy on December 4, 2006 at 7:03 PM
You guys have more faith in the Dem Leadership and the general electorate than I do.
I hope you are right; This is another time I’d be happy to be wrong.
LegendHasIt on December 4, 2006 at 7:09 PM
Entelechy: I just finished watching Rove give a speech at Hillsdale College in Michigan tonight on C-Span. (You can probably catch a rebroadcast of it later tonight.) He emphasized one thing several times. He agrees with with Bernard Lewis’s assessment of the fencesitters in the Arab and broader Muslim world. They’re still waiting to see of we’re serious about supporting democracy in the ME and will get onside if we win in Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. The tide absolutlely can turn in our favor again if we can get some solid wins capable of defending themselves when we move on to other areas.
You should try to catch it again later tonight or record it and watch it later. My sense is that he and the President are on the same page on this. Bush isn’t going to back down. He never does. The only time he considers a change in policy is when he’s already been beaten. Dubai Ports, Homeland Security Dept., 9-11 Commission. Bush will only pull out if we’ve already lost. And barring MAJOR disasterous developements we’re a couple of years away from that being clear. We’ll stay at least to the end of his term.
The Apologist on December 4, 2006 at 8:39 PM
The Apologist, thank you for the tip – I’m watching as I write – he’s answering qustions now. Very true, very true. How to convince the masses who’re clueless…and the media is h–l bent to spew propaganda. Communication needs to go on the offensive from the WH. He can speak, but he does so only infrequently. I saw Newt Gingrich yesterday on “Road to the WH” – he was brilliant, whether he runs or not. It was great to listen to his take on this war, how long it will take, getting away from Middle East oil dependence, etc.
He’s now headed to the Congressional Ball :)
Thanks again and regards,
Entelechy on December 4, 2006 at 11:33 PM
Comment pages: