So getting rid of Maliki resulted in the Iraqi army breaking a siege?
That is not not what I wrote. Here is what I wrote.
"The Iraqis got rid of Maliki. Good riddance. See here the news that the Iraqi army, Turkmen, Shiite militia and US airstrikes have broken the IS terrorist siege of Amirili."
Getting rid of Maliki did not "result" in the Iraqi army breaking a siege. The inference in your question is not correct. I pointed out quite clearly that the Iraqi army, Turkmen, Shiite militia and US airstrikes have broken the IS terrorist siege of Amirili.".
I don't get why you cannot comprehend the very simple language that I used.
"the Iraqi army, Turkmen, Shiite militia and US airstrikes have broken the IS terrorist siege of Amirili."
I have not strung events together and assumed a causality that does not exist.
My argument is that (a) the Iraqi army, Turkmen, Shiite militia and US airstrikes are what broke the IS terrorist siege of Amirili.
And (b) getting rid of Maliki was a wise diplomatic objective and solid recommendation of the Obama Administration. And now that Maliki is gone there is going to be more news such as the broken siege of Amirilli that will be forthcoming.
And (c) Right wing lies about Obama are crumbling under their own weight as IS terrorists are driven out of Iraq and continue to be killed by the only world leader that has actually authorized killing IS terrorists on a daily basis.
Those that wish to continue kissing Maliki's ass like tinydancer and you can kiss it all you wish. Just don't whine when a much smarter man refuses to kiss it for you. There is a much better strategy to be had than that.