Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control

[Truth2Tell]

Source: The Independent

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

By Patrick Cockburn
Thursday, 5 June 2008

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.



Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html

[digidigido]

1. K&R Where is the mainstream media on this. I emailed Pelosi and Waxman

[armodem08]

2. Kick. This is important!

[tom_paine]

3. Where is the Toady Media on this? Where they always are.

Half cowering with fear at the Bushie Lie Machine, half fawning like dogs over the Bushie Lie Machine.

[mallard]

6. We have no independent press on our side ...

... as citizens of anything resembling a free country.

This is serious. The news controllers are traitors to the constitution and should be tarred and feathered for their destruction of protections afforded us since national foundation 1776.

Otherwise, we had better start over. Commonwealth of Massachusetts still sounds better than Republic of Massachusetts to me.

[digidigido]

92. Delahunt is paying attention. http://www.house.gov/delahunt/

http://www.house.gov/delahunt/

[yurbud]

106. I emailed them too. You must be my neighbor--Waxman is my rep

[springhill]

123. They probably already know about it............

and are going along. It wouldn't surprise me.

[rebel with a cause]

125. I posted an article about the protest in Iraq over this agreement

several days ago, but because the article opened with a sentence or two about the soldier who was handing out religious coins being relocated I got flamed. Even though I tried to point out that this was not the point of the article, no one was interested to read the rest of the article. Sometimes the media reports things but we are too closed minded to read past the first sentence to find what we need to know. So I already knew this was going on because I read the article found in the mainstream media.

[LiberalFighter]

156. Don't necessarily need to start out with the first paragraphs...

if the meat of the article is really something else.

[rebel with a cause]

158. Yeah, that was my mistake

but the name of the article was that also and very misleading. Perhaps they were trying to hide what the reporter was trying to say. Editors have been known to do that. (my son is a reporter)

[matt007]

4. I hate Republicans...........sweet Jesus I hate them

50 Bases? What do these people think it will accomplish? Looks like August we will get some bad news after the convention when this deal gets approved.

[jwirr]

72. Remember they still haven't got the first embassy up and working.

[dixiegrrrrl]

166. the bases align with the oil pipeline routes

see:

The Oil Factor

Orwell rolls In His Grave

and related videos at

freedocumentaries.org

[robinlynne]

170. At the very least it will enable them to continue stealing billions or is that trillions.

plus notice the immunity for murder.

[matt007]

5. We could block this in congress maybe

[librechik]

79. yeah--if only Bush knew the Constitution all treaties must be approved by Congress

I ain't never sending my kids to Yale!

[boilerbabe]

197. Don't paint the whole place according to Bush!

shit, why should higher education suffer for that? If you can afford to send your kids to Yale, then do so!

[Baby Snooks]

7. It will never happen...

The Iraqi people will never accept it so the Iraqi Parliament will never approve it. Bush may try to push once too often and the Iraqi people may finally push back. And we may see the fires of hell that Saddam Hussein promised us. And instead of 4,000 Americans dead in Iraq we may see 40,000 dead. We may not have a military left if we persist.

If the people in San Franciso return Nancy Pelosi to Congress, I will never go to San Francisco again. I hope others do the same.

She more than anyone else was given a mandate in 2006 and she took the mandate off the table.

She belongs at Nuremberg along with everyone else. She should have allowed impeachment. And she should have cut off funding. Even if it meant shutting the country down.

[digidigido]

8. Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, all cowards. A type of politician that needs to be replaced

[saigon68]

27. Yes Chuck Scumer would love this

[ryanmuegge]

50. Many "Democrats" would be all for this, I'm sure.

[DUlover2909]

32. If any major offensive took place and Americans were taking casualties

The US would order air strikes from the Persian Gulf and other air bases to demolish Baghdad or wherever the conflict was. There's no way the Iraqi's can't really stop us from doing anything we want. They can use suicide bombers or snipers to chip away at us but the only way we leave Iraq is when we finaly decide to leave. The Iraqi's don't have anything close to the amount of military power that we have. The solution is to get the Congress to stop this nonsense and put Bush in his place.

[Dogtown]

36. Viet Nam

We couldn't be beaten there either.

The US has declared that every enemy since Germany would be bombed into submission and that no one could withstand our air power.

Yet we lost the last 3 wars. Attrition has defeated us in all our post WWII adventures, as it aided us against the Axis powers.

Our people cannot continue to allow adventurers to waste our resources in their personal crusades. There's little left...

[DUlover2909]

39. I totally see your point, but...

The military has learned from it's past mistakes (even if Bush hasn't). Iraq is not Vietnam. The theater of conflict is much more open. There is no regular army in Iraq to oppose us in the way that the N Vietnamese army did. They were supported by China and the Soviet Union. They had a real army and their Vietcong.

[krkaufman]

54. But wasn't the problem in Vietnam *not* so much the regular N. Vietnamese army ....

... but the Viet Cong?

Iraq is not an "open" theater of combat. It may lack a jungle, but it is an urban guerilla resistance.

[Dogtown]

55. The NVA

did not operate as a regular army until we were defeated. There were spasms of "normal" conflict such as Hue, but those were exceptions.

And while it's true that Viet Nam, due to it's jungle climate, favored a guerrilla conflict based on stealth and ambush, terrain is relative. In Iraq urban combat is much more frequent, and that's just as scary as trying to avoid ambush in thick bush.
As relatively impoverished as Iraq is compared to Viet Nam with their super-power suppliers, the IED is cheap and effective and they are as successfully denying us access to the countryside as Victor Charlie did.

The military truism that generals tend to fight the last war is true. I'm sure some of the military have learned from Nam's mistakes; that doesn't help them foresee the new mistakes they're going to make when faced with new tactics. The Nam ambush has been replaced with the Iraqi IED. The tunnel of Nam are the casbahs of Baghdad.

The politicians running the war are obsessed with the mistakes of Viet Nam; that's why there's no draft. "Re-fighting" *that* war they've avoided the draft, because they know the flood of returning servicemen weakened civilian morale. They've avoided the nightly newscasts of violence that horrified Americans. They don't allow media coverage of returning caskets.

Hell, they control the media and stifle any news that doesn't print in red-white-blue.

To no avail. They haven't addressed the realities of *this* war; the exhaustion of troops after repeated deployments; the toll a desert environment takes on our overly-technological equipment.

They didn't anticipate that news would seep past their media because of the internet.

We've lost Iraq as surely as we lost Viet Nam, and for the same reason: we don't belong there.

[rAVES]

173. Great post, Dogtown!

[DUlover2909]

180. You make very good points.

What I meant was if the Iraqi's mounted a successful offensive the US would escalate to the point of total destruction and lay waste to all the Iraqi's including the civilians. I meant that it would be horrible and that any move on our part that would provoke them is insane.

I would argue that we actually did win the Iraq War in 2003 quite handily. We conquered their military forces and removed a regime. It was a mistake for Bush to have done that, but in war that's usually considered victory. The second mistake was staying around and trying to control the Iraqi's.

[Dogtown]

191. We won

because bush said "Mission Accomplished". The Iraqis didn't notice.

If our goal had been removing a regime, we might have "won".

And we'd be home. The war was about controlling/colonization and we continue to lose that war daily.

The only way we can win *is* "total destruction". If there were no Iraqis left, there would be an end to the war.

I don't mean to harp, but you are confusing "conventional war" with reality.
Conventional war has rules that both sides pretty much follow. The problem with it is, if the people don't accept the dominance of the "conventional" winners, they start killing them. The only way to stop that kind of war is to kill everybody, and all the munitions dropped on a citadel, or capitol, jungle trail or wadi won't accomplish that.

Nuclear weapons could, but the rest of the world would frown on that. And bomb fuck out of us.

Total destruction isn't good for profits and war is always and only about profit.

[barbtries]

182. very well put

[Dogtown]

192. Thanks, barbtries

I have given the matter some thought.

:hi:

[jwirr]

74. You are right in your assessment but I do not think it is Iraq alone who is

going to oppose this plan - every country in the ME with the possible exception of Israel will not want us running their show. The other countries do have stronger military.

[awoke_in_2003]

138. Iraq is not Viet Nam in one respect:

we were fighting an organized and united enemy. If the 3 sects in Iraq ever pull their heads out, and consolidate their hate and direct it our way, it is all going to blow apart.

[lark]

203. His place??

jail.

[leftchick]

43. It is called complicity

the democratic leadership has been aware of those bases and cheney's long term goals for that oil region and they aided and abetted him all the way.

[not fooled]

172. yep

you nailed it. I just hope the American people are paying attention (not optimistic, though). What a bunch of sociopaths running this country.
:grr:

[King Coal]

65. I like the way you think, Snooks Babe. Everyone relax. Bush is insane.

[diane in sf]

130. I voted against her this time in the primary--she has really disappointed me.

[Selatius]

9. Occupations fail in the face of nationalist resistance.

The only way Iraq will accept this is if everyone who is opposed to a permanent presence in Iraq is eliminated. The survivors would be easier to govern with the dissidents destroyed.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Thusly, Iraq becomes the strategic move.

[santamargarita]

11. The fascist mainstream media won't touch this story, so let's K&R

-

[chimpymustgo]

12. Just put Hillary has horns in the title and the media and DU will be all over it.

K & R.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Iraq lawmakers want US forces out as part of deal

WASHINGTON, June 4 (Reuters) - A majority of the Iraqi parliament has written to Congress rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that U.S. forces leave, a U.S. lawmaker said on Wednesday.

Rep. William Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat and Iraq war opponent, released excerpts from a letter he was handed by Iraqi parliamentarians laying down conditions for the security pact that the Bush administration seeks with Iraq.

The proposed pact has become increasingly controversial in Iraq, where there have been protests against it. It has also drawn criticism from Democrats on the presidential election campaign trail in the United States, who say President George W. Bush is trying to dictate war policy after he leaves office.

"The majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq," the letter to the leaders of Congress said.

The signatures represented just over half the membership of Iraq's parliament, said Delahunt, a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee chairman.

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN04304912

I find it had to believe the parliament would stomach the deal of permanent bases, and American troops (and contractors!) being exempt from Iraqi law for good.

[lynnertic]

37. your avatar...

is that Marvin the robot?

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. It is indeed the Paranoid Android

The old-style, BBC TV version.

"Life? Don't talk to me about life ..."

[jonnyra]

14. I cannot believe the depravity

of this administration. Immunity from Iraqi law? This administration is evil. No other word so perfectly describes them. Evil.

[atreides1]

44. Yes, Immunity from Iraqi Law!!!

That way the Marine Corps doesn't have to go through all the motions of bringing charges only to acquit later!!!

[mac2]

48. Immunity for Blackwater, etc.

No international law allows genocide. Treaty or not.

[LynnTheDem]

64. No international law allows for the bush regime's invasion of Iraq.

That didn't stop them.

[mac2]

121. All the "modern democracies" sat by and let it happen for

Empire.

[Posteritatis]

181. I can. (nt)

[geckosfeet]

15. Why would any government grant any foreign army and their military

contractors legal immunity?

And if they do, how this constitute a victory - for anyone?

[Judi Lynn]

20. Bush pushed that arrangement on Paraguay in 2004.

I believe they recently withdrew their immunity pledge to Bush for U.S. personel in Paraguay, maybe last year.

In the case of small or poor countries, could be he threatens them with economic punishment, like sanctions, etc., or bribes them with promises of additional foreign aid.

You recall he bullied so many small countries into giving him troops to go to Iraq, also, and many have withdrawn them.

In Paraguay, U.S. personel were on the ground there at Mariscal Estagarribia air base, an ENORMOUS landing strip large enough for the largest U.S. transport planes carved right out in the middle of the jungle, with no large roads anywhere in sight.

It's a prime location because from that base _Bush could summons troops to invade Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, etc.



Five hundred U.S. troops arrived in Paraguay with planes, weapons, and ammunition in July 2005, shortly after the Paraguayan Senate granted U.S. troops immunity from national and International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction. Neighboring countries and human rights organizations are concerned that the massive air base at Mariscal Estigarribia, Paraguay is potential real estate for the U.S. military.

While U.S. and Paraguayan officials vehemently deny ambitions to establish a U.S. military base at Mariscal Estigarribia, the ICC immunity agreement and U.S. counterterrorism training exercises have increased suspicions that the U.S. is building a stronghold in a region that is strategic to resource and military interests.

The Mariscal Estigarribia air base is within 124 miles of Bolivia and Argentina, and 200 miles from Brazil, near the Triple Frontier where Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina meet. Bolivia’s natural gas reserves are the second largest in South America, while the Triple Frontier region is home to the Guarani Aquifer, one of the world’s largest fresh water sources. (See Story #20.)

Not surprisingly, U.S. rhetoric is building about terrorist threats in the triborder region. Dangl reports claims by Defense officials that Hezbollah and Hamas, radical Islamic groups from the Middle East, receive significant funding from the Triple Frontier, and that growing unrest in this region could leave a political "black hole" that would erode other democratic efforts. Dangl notes that in spite of frequent attempts to link terror networks to the triborder area, there is little evidence of a connection.

The base’s proximity to Bolivia may cause even more concern. Bolivia has a long history of popular protest against U.S. exploitation of its vast natural gas reserves. But the resulting election of leftist President Evo Morales, who on May 1, 2006 signed a decree nationalizing all of Bolivia’s gas reserves, has certainly intensified hostilities with the U.S.1

When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld visited Paraguay in August of 2005, he told reporters that, "there certainly is evidence that both Cuba and Venezuela have been involved in the situation in Bolivia in unhelpful ways." More:
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/431/1 /

~~~~~~~~~
It may be that the attraction for people like _Bush is the mere expansion of power, and weaker countries may be seduced by the impression they will gain materially from the arrangement.

[jwirr]

78. We have "legal" immunity in almost all countries that we have troops.

That is why we will not join the international crime court. Read "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson.

[bulloney]

16. Where will the money for this setup come from?

Will we just run up federal deficit spending even more indefinitely? At what cost to federal programs for maintaining infrastructure and social programs?

This looks so similar to circumstances that marked the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union.

[mac2]

51. A clear path to tyranny and fear.

The Soviet Union did not embrace democracy. The elite stole the people's ownership for themselves. Wonder where those huge yachts in Miami come from? It was just plain criminal. Those old guys won't give up power just like here.

I read an article about how they ruined Russia. I'll try to find it.

[Amonester]

17. "The" [bush junta] "is ... against" ... "a referendum in Iraq"

"The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence."

Since when is this kind of violent tyrany called "spreading democracy" in Iraq??

Ha! But they have OIL... Billions of barrels of it. Of course...

Where is the War-profiteering $tream Media, Joseph? :shrug:

[Doug.Goodall]

18. This plays right into McCain's hands. He would need a base of operations to conduct 100 years of war

Plus, we get to keep control of Iraq's oil. The more oil that is kept off of the market, the more money the oil business can extract from us through higher prices.

We need to put a stop to this. We need to elect Obama as our next President.

[AzDar]

19. K & R...

:kick:

[DailyGrind51]

21. I don't see how this deal could be valid?

It would have to be ratified by Congress, which, now, would be highly unlikely.

[Amonester]

23. Congress? This Cheneyron corpofascist regime doesn't need it.

They'll find another "new" idiot name to call it and claim the PNAC's wet dream of a "New Pearl Harbor" come true "changed" everything.

They're so easy to predict. Like Congress ever really wanted to stop them... (to the point of being "effective" at doing that).

Not.

[jwirr]

82. Didn't *ss say something in a speech just a couple of days ago that

they were working on a deal that would not call for congressional approval?

[DailyGrind51]

146. They can work out whatever deal they want,

but the new, overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, with President Obama, can overturn it, just like Bush abrogated treaties with Russia regarding missiles.

[mac2]

53. They gave away all their power to the Executive.

The new President will have it too. This Congress is spineless. They'd better watch out that elephant in the room doesn't sit on them.

[DailyGrind51]

154. What a Republican contolled Congress can give to a president,

a Democratic, veto-proof, Congress can take away!

[mac2]

185. But they won't using the "terrorism and war" as an excuse.

[Supersedeas]

22. more Condi diplomacy at work here

[nvme]

24. Forgive my Ignorance

I have limitted knowledge of the constitution but, Isn't this fall under a treaty? If so isn't the congress supposed to ratify treaties? How would this bind us unless congress consents? Obama is still party of the congress at least until Jan 19th. Could this be Implimented and withstand a court challenge if nothing else? How could we be bound by this? Also, if this could happen, can congress' "Power of the purse be used to prevent it from being funded? If you are more familiar with the law please explain how and if this is possible? I would like to know.

[JHB]

31. How could we be bound by this? By cowardice and capitulation...

...on the part of the "opposition", which would be the Democrats in Washington, once again caving in to the same presidential power-grasping and bully tactics that have been a hallmark of this (mal)administration, getting Congress to legalize its illegal actions.

It may not play out the way they think it will, but they've had a lot of time to get used to the idea that they'll get their way as long as they don't back down.

[Nickster]

35. They'll just call it something other than a treaty. Since it won't be called a treaty, they will

claim that it isn't in the power of Congress to ratify it. They've been floating this idea for awhile now, calling it a protection agreement I believe.

[lynnertic]

38. Except Iraq won't agree without *its* parliament's approval.

Because they're like, building a democracy or something over there.

[no_hypocrisy]

25. Another secret deal that goes with the North American Union.

I also get the feeling that this is yet another "We'll make you an offer you can't possibly refuse" situation.

[mac2]

46. 50 bases there with our tax dollars

and few here.

The North American Union is an elephant in the room which the candidates won't admit. We will pay but will act like it is to protect Israel. They as much said so over the past two days.

They might not be Americans but we will pay. Where is that Iraq oil that was supposed to pay for all of this Congress, Wolfovich, Cheney, Rice? Liars?

[tekisui]

26. So, they want to declare ANOTHER military victory, and continue

the permanent bases? Fucking bullshit.

ARREST THE WAR CRIMINALS!!!

[MetaTrope]

28. 50 bases named after the states, no doubt

Oooooo isn't that precious?

[mac2]

47. Who was the anti-war protect our borders candidate this time

around? Didn't make the cut? Ya...the corporate media/DLC made sure they
didn't. Np Progressive apply here should be the sign over the DNC headquarters.

Dean said he was anti-war to get the leadership role. I heard him say he approved of Bush's Shock & Awe on the NPC on CSPAN but not the way Bush said it. I have the memory of an elephant so he can't bamboozle me.

Now stuff is going on about the conventions. Cancel the parties, etc. This is scary. Is something planned on those days? Why have it if Hillary has given up and Obama is the "chosen delegate"? Are they trying to silence our voices?

Not good for democracy Hillary and Obama.

Impeach the traitors.

[MetaTrope]

155. So far as the corporate media are concerned, there have always been only two Dem candidates

And yeah, that fact worries me too.

[mac2]

186. All this anger and fighting and they pick who wins in the end.

This election was decided by Dean and his appointed committees. The DNC convertion and delegate votes for the platform negated before it even happens. What a dog and pony show.

I just can't watch Americans make more mistakes in this election acting like there is "change". Change for Empire is more like it.

I'd like to be wrong. Delegates show me I am.

[WillyT]

29. K & R !!!

:kick:

[Rockholm]

30. Isn't this Illegal?

Wouldn't Congress need to approve it? Oh, right.....Illegal (all Bush, all the time) and Congress (lame joke). Guess it's a gonna happen.

[bronxiteforever]

33. To the US Media-"DO YOUR JOB AND COVER THIS!!!"

K & R

[Magleetis]

34. Many of us

knew this all along. The Neocon plan is to own the ME. Iraq becomes one big US base. McClellan even said so.

Repugs care nothing for human life or the earth.

[gorfle]

41. For the money spent

I don't understand this fascination with squeezing the last oil dollar profits out of the world.

For the amount of money we have spent and will spent we could have revolutionized the alternative energy world. We could have developed technology that would put us ahead of the rest of the world for decades. We could have profited off of the intellectual property for decades. We could have created thousands upon thousands of jobs. We could have obtained energy independence.

I don't understand it.

[Hydra]

80. You have to understand the mindset of the Uber-Rich

I asked the same question a lot of years ago. The rich enjoy being rich, right? Why wouldn't they want the country to be more rich? That would mean more for them, overall.

The key to it is the mindset of gated communities, exclusive resorts, and private banks.

Exclusivism. It's not enough for the Uber-Rich to be Uber-Rich. They have to control who's allowed to be in their "club"- They get off on the idea of how much better they are than others, and how their power derived from that allows them to cause the "cattle" to suffer.

And in so doing, they are destroying our art, culture, scientific understanding and ethics.

They are destroying the human race in their hollow existences.

[diane in sf]

133. They can't control decentralized, networked sources of power and their

money is invested in the current setup that they control.

[Window]

40. K/R.

:kick:

[BrklynLib at work]

42. BushCo is STILL trying to control things...and set things up so they can continue their control

no matter now the next election goes.
This has got to be stopped!!!!
Bush could not be doing a better job of destroying this country if he was a paid agent of a foreign enemy. Since he and his minions are obviously destroying the entire world, it is greed of every type that is motivating them, not idealism or even politics.

[midnight]

45. This secret deal does not govern this country. The

Constitution does. Another Hellen Thomas moment-"Where is everybody"

[rucky]

49. McCain knew. n/t

[metamars]

52. The day after US "suspends" embassy move to Jerusalem

Looks like the US wouldn't want to infuriate Arabs and Persians all at once. First cement a US outrage, then an Israeli one.

<sarcasm> How slick! I'm sure the Iraqis and Palestinians will both be completely fooled. </sarcasm>

This story was filed 6 pm yesterday:
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/06/04/us_suspends_move_of_embassy_to_jerusalem/6211/

As the American Israel Public Affairs Committee met in Washington, U.S. President George Bush Wednesday suspended plans to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.

The White House released a memo to the secretary of state ordering a six-month suspension in preparations for moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv.

What next? Will the US decide to make Baghdad it's new "undivided" capital? Since we have a bigger army than the Iraqis, why not? Washington is drowning in a mountain of debt, but Baghdad has a surplus! Wouldn't it be easier to steal it if we declared Baghdad our capital? Maybe we can even make Washington the capital of Iraq, and get the Iraqis to assume US debt. Hey, it's the least they could do to show their appreciation for being liberated by the US!

As for Obama declaring

Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

he's got me wondering if he's going to end up being as principled as Pelosi. And no, that's not a compliment. He may have well just have said that "an equitable agreement regarding Jerusalem is off the table". Humiliating the Palestinians further by pretending that they have no legitimate claims to Jerusalem bodes ill for a just peace in the Middle East. Just like the US superbases in Iraq and propaganda about Iranian nuclear weapons programs, contrary to the NIE.

Should Obama next come out and declare that this "secret plan" is a good thing, he will probably lose my vote. Hey, if I vote for the Green Party, at least you can't blame me for whatever lunacy either a McCain or Obama presidency will inject into the Middle East.

[mac2]

58. Nothing in politics happens by accident.

You can bet those DNC parties canceled in Denver means something. The long primary was a distraction. Now the election to be the same. Behind it all they talk about democracy and "change". "Change" is coming but it it the Americas Union.

The EU has been a failure (except for the Euro) and many of the countries appose it. They want their sovereignty (Switzerland, Britain, etc.).

Rumsfeld thinks it's time for another 911 like event.

Why if Obama wins the election? He supports globalism and amnesty. Wish I could think differently but it's been coming a long time. Dangerous times are ahead.

[ramapo]

56. Not a treaty but a deal?

Let's see...treaties need congressional approval.

Deals don't. What makes a deal indefinite?

I'm missing something here.

[mac2]

59. What Constitution and law?

They've been lawless except for those secret organizations for some time.

[wryter2000]

115. If it's a deal...

Couldn't a new president cancel it? A treaty is harder to get out of, although that hasn't stopped the Chimp in Chief.

The way this bunch of bozos does things, I don't see Base One built by January.

[Wapsie B]

60. I thought there was a plan to maintain a permanent U.S. presence there.

Seems to me it was discussed here long ago about how even after the fighting forces were pulled out that permanent bases would be established in Iraq.

[Phred42]

61. Fascism On The March - and it's Pelosi's fault!

She can stop this and the upcoming attack on Iran by impeaching these bastards.

If She sits on her fat ass and does nothing - SHE, AND the Democrats will be responsible for all of it!

When a deranged child picks up a loaded weapon - and you site there and do nothing - WHO is responsible when that mentally disturbed child kills some one?

IMPEACH NOW!

[mac2]

188. Nancy Pelosi does not look good.

Is she having trouble sleeping at night giving away our mandate of the 2006 election and now this one?

[LynnTheDem]

62. George W. bUsh; against permanent bases before he was for permanent bases

April 13, 2004:

"As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html

August 14, 2005:

"We do not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. Our goal is to help Iraq stand on its own feet, to be able to look after its own security, and to do what we can to help achieve that goal."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2005/08/iraq-050815-usia01.htm

"President Bush: No Permanent US Military Bases in Iraq"
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-02/2008-02-10-voa19.cfm?CFID=244074029&CFTOKEN=21201760

Bush rejects congressional ban on permanent bases in Iraq
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/iraq-f01.shtml

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/30/bush_asserts_authority_to_bypass_defense_act/

Bush's secret deal would ensure permanent U.S. occupation of Iraq
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/365757_secretdealonline05.html

[paparush]

63. Bush : Lips Moving? Lies flowing.

[Hydra]

85. Is that like the WMDs thing?

The plan was there for permanent occupation from the start, and for a gradual widening of the conflict. We were just about to attack Syria when Iran started making noises at us. We were just about to attack Iran when the NIE came out.

Postponed but not canceled.

[hvn_nbr_2]

66. "Revealed": What we've all known for years. nt

[dawgman]

67. This is a huge story.

This is McCain's 100 years. This is the continuous trickle of US deaths and the continuous flood of Iraqi deaths.

This needs to be pushed.

[whistle]

77. This will lead to continuous military conflicts in Southwest Asia

...not to mention total control by the major oil companies of all of Iraq's oil reserves.

Congress can not permit this

[cyberpj]

68. Therefore KBR, Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater, etc will also have immunity? And $$ longevity. nt

[FutureDemocrat]

69. I knew Bush would do something w/ Iraq to screw Barack!!!

I had predicted he would pull out troops in October. Hence, Petraius' "45 day pause" in the draw down that he was speaking of. That put the majority of the drawdown right smack dab in October. I HOPE that soldiers, veterans, Americans will see that our soldiers are being used as political chess pieces by this administration. How many troops will died during Bush's political game?

[jwirr]

70. Congress and Obama need to say outright NOW that they will not

comply with this agreement made against the will of the people of the US and Iraq. This is an old problem in that treaties are made and then even when neither side wants them any more they must abide by them because the country signed on at another time.

[wordpix]

83. I agree, Barack and Congress, NOW is the time, this is a crisis-in-waiting

[grantcart]

71. This apparently the Iraqi Parliamentarian response to this plan

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6284907&mesg_id=6284907

[EVDebs]

73. Last I heard, contracts made under duress were invalid. nt

[whistle]

75. Congress must NOT ALLOW THIS TO PASS!

[Lorien]

76. And who would pay for all of this?

The Iraqi people would be paying in blood and oil (most sold to India and Israel) and their freedom, but have they even worked out a budget for this? how much would each taxpayer have to chip in indefinitely? That number you surely suck away what little support BushCo has!

[wordpix]

84. who's paying for this debacle NOW? You, me and our great, great, great grandchildren

:puke: Not to mention "Iraqi oil" :sarcasm:

[yurbud]

81. Sent to everyone on my mailing list with this note:

Apart from starting a new war with Iran, this is probably the top thing Bush could do to make the violence in Iraq worse.

The treaty he is forcing on them gives us 50 permanent bases there, the right to arrest any Iraqi for any reason, and immunity from prosecution for not only our troops, but Bush's mercenary buddies.

Iraqis haven't tried to prosecute our troops, but they have tried to expel the Blackwater mercenary company for the unprovoked slaughter of civilians. Bush overruled their demand, making them look like puppets, powerless to defend their own people.

The Iraqi parliament is afraid that if they pass this, they will lose whatever shred of legitimacy they have with their own people.

For all their talk of teaching the Iraqis democracy, the Bushies don't want Iraqis to vote on this treaty in a referendum, knowing they would lose by a near unanimous vote apart from the Kurds.

The Iraqis want to put off the vote, hoping Obama might do something constructive instead of having Bush gift for leaving a trail of chaos, corporate looting, and death.

This is worth contacting your senators about and telling them to block this treaty or at least draw attention to it. The media has an excuse not to cover it if no one in Washington is talking about it.

Find your senators and congressman's contact info:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/index.html

KEY EXCERPTS:

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

*****
The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

*****
The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

FULL TEXT:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html?service=Print

[EVDebs]

87. Article Dec '04 : War-gamed and found to be a fiasco. DOD "Let's Do It" ?

Will Iran Be Next ?
December 2004 Atlantic Monthly
by James Fallows

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows

The JCS will have to have their heads examined if they let these fools go further in the Big Muddy. Already war-gamed and found to be a fiasco and they STILL do it ? What was Einstein's quote about doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result ?

[yurbud]

103. even if Iran War goes badly, it will raise the price of oil, and result in crony contracts

so it will be a win for the Bush people.

[Hydra]

86. 50 bases...

And I heard only 8 + the Embassy at one point.

Congrats everyone- we allowed Bushco to commit the crime of the century. From Iraq, they can attack the entire Mid-East at will.

[EVDebs]

88. Looks like they're following the old '73 plans on oilfield seizures in the ME

Document reveals Nixon plan to seize Arab oil fields
'70s embargo sparked 'last resort' measure, says British memo

Lizette Alvarez, New York Times

Friday, January 2, 2004
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/02/MNG8G427D61.DTL

pay special attention to the Brit intel prediction that at least ten years (2003-2013 for example) will be required. What's that all about ?

[Hydra]

90. I'll look it over

I have some knowledge of military tactics- I was going to be in the service at one point but pulled my application when they started docking pay and retirement benefits.

[Hydra]

95. Not enough info in the article regarding the 10 years

I think it's safe to assume it's not related to the proposed 10-100 years in Iraq. I think the British were calculating how long it would take to subdue the area and move substantial quantities of oil out of the region before withdrawing.

[EVDebs]

97. I thought 'stabilize oil prices for big oil co's profits' myself nt

[Hydra]

100. That's what they are doing right now

I wasn't alive back then, so I don't know if the embargo was a boon or a headache for the oil companies.

The British seemed to take it at face value- Smack OPEC upside the head and piss the USSR off. Marking our territory, so to speak.

What Nixon was really thinking isn't something I can comment on- Bushco is easy- they announce what they are doing in clear language.

[snappyturtle]

89. OMG! Insanity......once again! K&R I will forward this to my Congress

Critters immediately. Thank you so much for posting this important news!

[Javaman]

91. This had to be the worst kept secret ever. nt

[krispos42]

93. I just wrote the following letter to my senator

Dear Senator Klobuchar,

This news article from the UK "Independent" newspaper concerns me greatly. The headline reads "Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control: Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors"

Here is the link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html

The second and third paragraphs of the story:

"The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November."



Getting some kind of agreement that legalizes our long-term occupation of Iraq is a GUARANTEED path to many horrible things. A steady stream of dead, maimed, and traumatized Americans. US financial collapse. The sacrifice of critical infrastructre and social dollars to the military effort. Continuing destabilization of the Middle East. Continuinal creation of insurgents that will become America-hating terrorists. Destruction of the Army.

We can not stay there. Not only should we not be there in the first place, we cannot stay there, not without a draft to triple the number of troops there and give them rest between tours, a decade-long committment to that draft to "win" in Iraq, war taxes to pay for it, and nationalization of the defense industry to meet the logistical demands of our half-million-strong occupation force!

America will not tolerate this. And because a decade-long draft for a half-million-strong occupation force is the ONLY path to military "victory" in Iraq, we must end our military involvement with Iraq and push ahead on the politicial, economic, and humanitarian fronts to repair Iraq. And these efforts must be led by a competent Democrat, not a corporatist Republican.

Senator, your seat is not due up for re-election until 2012, the same year that it is highly likely that a successful and popular Barack Obama will be running for re-election, and because of this your own re-election is pretty well guarenteed. Stand up to Bush and his chickenhawk lapdogs! Do not let them beat you down with the specter of "terrah terrah 9/11 terrah!"

The Senate MUST used its constitutional authority to pass or reject international treaties to stop Bush on this issue in Iraq.

It's pretty much an established fact by now that ANYTHING the authoritarian, pro-transnational-corporation Republicans, especially Bush, want is a bad idea. Any law, any budget, any political appointee. So if you stand up to them, we will support you! But you have to stand up to them first, and not buckle on things like funding the occupation or FISA or impeachment. Your (the Senate and the House) spines must stop being a Slinky and start being a steel rod.

And you need to start making the obstructionist Republicans do a real, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" filibusters because it's quite obvious by now that will let the county go to Hell rather than give any kind of political victory to Democrats or to simply do what is right.

Remember, Senator, if you flop on the major issues then victory on a hundred minor ones will go unnoticed.

Thank you for your time.

[mac2]

193. Good for you.

I'd like to think they'd stop their wars in Palestine, Somalia, etc. No war against Iran either.

Senator Rockefeller was acting all brave and outraged over the lying intelligence information they were given on his committee about Iraq. It was on CSPAN yesterday. I have to ask the Senator why he believed it when so many around the world and those Americans in the streets didn't? It's a Bush for god sake who was lying.

Emm the bottom line is he is running for re-election in WVA.

[Initech]

94. Immunity for contractors? So even those Blackwater fuckers get off scot-free?

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[mac2]

194. They weren't punished for their strange actions during

Katrina either. People hid from them because there were shootings, etc. It's a wonder more people didn't die in the floods on that weekend.

But don't investigate any of Katrina properly either. Guess who gained power in LA over Katrina? Republicans.

[gasperc]

96. this would be an illegal treaty negotiation

undoing it would create diplomatic headaches but not honoring an illegal treaty would not necessarily look like the US going back on it's word

[young_at_heart]

98. Congress HAS to wake up!

McCain talking about "victory in Iraq" is to perpetuate the criminality of the Bush/Cheney nightmare. It is truly mind boggling that so many Republican lawmakers have gone along with Bush all these years out of crazy loyalty. Why can't they see how dangerous his actions have proven to be. How on earth do they sleep at night?
















'

[mcjackson]

99. haven't we had control...

...of iraqi airspace since 1991?

[Better Believe It]

101. K&R

[awoke_in_2003]

141. "How on earth do they sleep at night?"

On mattresses stuffed with money.

[mac2]

195. And DLC Democrats.

[orleans]

102. bush will NEVER be able to

"declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated"

bush is over
he has been outed
he scammed this country
he scammed the world
we know it.
he's done.

[Jefferson23]

104. This is the nightmare we all face, WHEN are our elected officials going to act??

There is no other president in our history more corrupt than the Bush administration, yet, Pelosi does NOTHING to end this..Bush must be impeached now!

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

105. Sooner or later, hopefully sooner...

...we must face the inescapable reality of their long range plans: massive depopulation.

Mother Nature would've eventually tended to it, but her timetable, and non-allegience with the dark side, does not satisfy those orchestrating our New World Order.

[funflower]

107. Unsurprising, but Bush can't bind future U.S. governments

Remember Kyoto?

[yurbud]

108. POSTED ON YAHOO ANSWERS: How is Bush teaching Iraq democracy if they can't vote on permanent bases?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080605095354AAmt6aH&pa=FYd1D2bwHTHzJbhgHO4zQnkgby4xvIlbCsPF4u.A6pWmBw--&paid=asked&msgr_status=

The treaty he is forcing on them gives us 50 permanent bases there, the right to arrest any Iraqi for any reason, and immunity from prosecution for not only our troops, but Bush's mercenary buddies.

Iraqis haven't tried to prosecute our troops, but they have tried to expel Blackwater mercenaries for unprovoked killings of civilians. Bush overruled them, making them look like puppets, powerless to defend their own people.

The Iraqi parliament is afraid that if they pass this, they will lose any legitimacy they have with their own people.

For all their talk of teaching the Iraqis democracy, the Bushies don't want Iraqis to vote on this treaty in a referendum, knowing they would lose by a wide margin.

The Iraqi parliament doesn't want it, and the people don't want it. But Bush will force them to do it.

How is this teaching them democracy?

[young_at_heart]

110. "Bush will force them to do it"

"Force" is a word that has seemed to stick with Bush throughout the years. Another is "unprecedented".

[yurbud]

111. he is a spoiled child, used to having servants cater to him. When people don't, he has no concept

of how to persuade them, he simply goes straight to force or threat of force.

[mac2]

196. He's a puppet for Empire.

[yurbud]

202. I sometimes wonder if they didn't choose an idiot so they could make him a fall guy

and he could legitimately say he knew nothing.

[mac2]

206. and say...he wasn't aware, wasn't responsible, was lied too, etc.

When Scottie gave his reasons...they were like all the rest of the Neo Cons. They mislead me...they lied, etc. The country was in the streets and the world protested very loudly but none of them heard a thing.

Guess we are smarter.

[GAtomboy]

109. Wow

It never ceases to amaze me just what an utter and total piece of shit Bush is. I can only take solace in hoping Kharma bitch slaps him but good.... and Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice.. the list is long. All of those self serving bastards should rot in prison and "NOT" be tortured... just like they have not tortured.

[BayjanDem]

112. Marching in the streets

We should be marching in the streets. This is unbelievable. Government run amok.

[mac2]

207. We have been for many years but the media won't cover it

or even discuss it. The illegals demanding citizenship get more attention from the media and our representatives.

[yurbud]

113. VOTE this up on newsrankers: LINKS

http://news.propeller.com/story/2008/06/05/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control

http://buzzflash.net/story.php?id=54389

http://digg.com/politics/Revealed_Secret_plan_to_keep_Iraq_under_US_control

http://reddit.com/info/6m59u

[The_Casual_Observer]

114. The only reason for any of this is the oil supply. We'll find out just how

committed to giving back Iraq Obama is in the next year.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

116. *** They Can "Negotiate" All They Want ***

It won't mean a thing when Obama is President.
He will be able to make those "permanent" bases into temporary bases with a stroke of his pen.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is flat out deranged.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Beetwasher]

118. Especially W/ A Dem Controlled Congress

There's no way they can make this binding w/out congressional approval. They may CLAIM it is, but when there's a new Dem admin. and Dem congress, it will be null and void.

[TexasBushwhacker]

117. Leaked on purpose?

"The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated."

Declare military victory, but maintain a long term presence, continue feeding the military industrial beast. Wow, what a deal? Perhaps this will stir up enough unrest in Iraq to cause another stateside "terrorist" attack, which would of course benefit McCain, or they could just declare martial law and put off the election of a new president indefinitely.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050602687.html

[TomClash]

119. Not binding unless ratified by the Senate

If it looks like a treaty then it is one. Unconstitional.

Why am I not surprised?

[liberal N proud]

120. He is rushing this to to prevent Obama from leaving the gold behind

From the article:
"But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November."

[Diclotican]

126. liberal N proud

liberal N proud

The next president, if it was to come Obama can tell the iraqi people and their government, that the american soldiers would not be there forever?... And working to send them home, regardless of what the former administration of mr Bush have decided to do?

But, anyway, wasn't the administration of mr Bush promising the world, the american people and the iraqi people that they would not stand longer in Iraq than needed... It looks like a lie, more and more...

Specially when they want to build 50 permanent bases in Iraq... It doesn't look like an liberation to me, more like a permanent occupation...

And I am afraid that the iraqi people would not stand to be occupied by americans.. History know it all to well. Yes the US armed forces ARE the biggest and most powerfully in the region, and "can" keep a presets there for a long time.. But if they had no support, and was fighting nail and tail every day, every week every month and every year.. I would end i catastrophe for the US armed forces.. No Army I know of, in the annals of history have survived an occupied country without the support of the population in the country.. And the Iraqi people are no friends of the armed forces anymore... They might say you are the best of the options, but they want the US forces out.... And I mean EVERY SINGLE SOLDIER...

If the current administration have the "balls" to get a deal/treaty with the iraqi government, behind both parties Parliament and Congress, this is a deal who could be off when the next president are sworn in as the president.. US need no more bases in the middle east.. What they desperately need are more friends.. And you don't make friends when you build huge permanent occupation bases in their country..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[oneofthepeople]

122. Bush claims Not subject to Congressional approval

According to this article...

Yet the administration insists that the agreements, variously said to be completed by July or December 2008, will not require congressional approval. In a novel doctrine asserted on March 3, the administration claims that, like those junk mail credit card offers, the agreements yet to be negotiated have already been “preapproved” by Congress in its 2002 authorization of the Iraq war.

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=3196&issue_id=35

[milord]

124. Settlement of the Iraq War

All right.Bush has lost his last, few remaining marbles. He is definitely crazy, and should be locked up. But where? How about Abu Ghraib?
He's fucking crazy! Over the edge!

[rhett o rick]

169. I want Georgie's punishment to be to serve burgers at McDonald for minimum wage.

"You want fries with that, hey hey hey."

[cui bono]

127. I heard on the radio that members of the Iraqi "govt." are traveling here to tell congress

they do not agree with this. Couldn't read the entire article right now, but I wonder if this is mentioned...

[marlakay]

128. there has to be a way to stop this

and to keep him from bombing iran before obama gets in....congress time to step up....come on...you can do it...

[sandyj999]

135. Why are they so afraid to do anything??? What a useless bunch! n/t

[Catamount]

129. OMG K&R

[Greyskye]

131. K & R

#99

Who gets the 100th Rec? :shrug:

I'm so ready for President Obama! :banghead:

[SteppingRazor]

132. Ridiculous.

Bush's power only extends as far as January. How exactly does he intend to make this proposal go on "regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November"? What's to stop the next president from just making a new deal?

[lovuian]

134. Baaawaaahaaa 50 Bases why 50 lets make a 1000

so you can steal without punishment

Somebody needs a reality check
:rofl:

[sofa king]

136. Oh, just like the Mongols.

That's what the Mongols always wanted: total military control over a disarmed and terrorized public, with a guarantee of all profits and complete immunity for all Mongol soldiers.

As a result, a single Mongol horseman could (to paraphrase Archer Jones), stroll into a village, eat all of their best food, drink the best spirits, stay in the finest house while bedding the most attractive wives and daughters, and then sleep like a baby in the knowledge that if he woke up with a scratch, his pals would descend on the village, kill all the men, sell the women and children into slavery and burn the city to the ground.

So what threat does that great thinker George W. Bush plan to hold over the heads of modern-day Iraqis which is comparable to the Mongols' policy of rape, murder and pillage? Or has that part of the plan not changed as well?

[DebbieCDC]

137. Dan Froomkin is covering this in the Washington Post

Maybe it will get some legs -- this lunacy has GOT to stop!

[Leo 9]

144. Bush's Secret Iraq Deal (By Dan Froomkin)

Bush's Secret Iraq Deal

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, June 5, 2008; 12:35 PM

Despite opposition from both the Iraqi and American people, President Bush appears to be forging ahead on a multi-year security agreement with the Iraqi government that would lock in the occupation status quo.

A British newspaper reports new details about the ongoing secret negotiations: Bush wants to retain the use of more than 50 military bases in Iraq and is insisting on immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. troops and contractors, as well as a free hand to carry out military activities without consulting the Baghdad government. The pact, which Bush has said he does not intend to submit for Congressional approval, would take effect shortly before he leaves office. Reversing it, while possible, would force a future president to break an international commitment.

But there are signs of increasing resistance on the Iraqi side. At a congressional hearing yesterday, two members of the Iraqi parliament said Bush's terms would infringe on Iraqi sovereignty and perpetuate the violence there. They said any agreement should include a timetable for a quick departure of U.S. troops.

And in case the stakes weren't already high enough, the agreement is shaping up to be yet another proxy battle with Iran.

The Coverage


Patrick Cockburn writes in the Independent: "A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

snip

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/06/05/BL2008060501746.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[mac2]

208. They all act against our self interest. Every foreign country

has more say then we do.

[Divine Discontent]

139. goodness - this should seal it for anyone on the fence!

we MUST get Obama in - anything else is perpetual civil war over there that we'd be in the middle, watching a thousand US troops DIE a year or more, and damn McSAME ain't gonna do shit but continue *'s mistake!



New Obama & Anti-McSame Items - All the Good Stuff!
www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[madrchsod]

140. so he thinks....

bush does`t understand that he`s no longer in power....

[mnhtnbb]

142. Bushie boy has done it now. If this doesn't get Congress off its a$$, then

it's time to get in the streets.

Wait, though, then Bushie will declare martial law, round everybody up and throw us in the detention
centers built by Halliburton and friends.

Are we seeing the plan?

[cbc5g]

143. Mission Accomplished, right Bushie?

Can that fucker get any worse

[Imagevision]

145. Where is Keith Olberman when he's really needed - Chris mathews, S-O-M-E-B-O-D-Y!!!

H-e-l-l-o! anyone out there?

[Tight_rope]

147. K & R. It'll always come out in the wash!

[bluesmail]

148. I read a while back to think of Iraq as an aircraft carrier

[Bozita]

149. Local teevee news just covered this story.

www.wdiv.com

[texastoast]

162. Where?

I just might be blind.

[Bozita]

164. It's the Detroit affiliate of NBC.

[trickyguy]

150. Restriction of the press is a fascist tactic. And it's nothing new.

:evilfrown:

[greyghost]

151. No surprise at all, its always been about the oil. We'll be there for

100 years.

[texastoast]

163. Depends on us.

We can choose differently. Of course, we might have to work and take the time to put pressure on our elected representatives, hopefully most of the new ones being Dem.

This little jewel contains tanks of compressed air and recharges the air compressor with electricity (which can be generated easily without coal if WE pressure the new Congress for additional solar/wind/geothermal energy development). It is likely that the safety laws in India (where the Air Car will be sold shortly) are not going to be the same as the U.S., and the auto/oil&gas industry here will whine and argue the safety issue, because, after all, tanks of compressed air will blow up like a bomb on collision.

And what will tanks of gasoline do without protection? Just ask a 1973 Ford Pinto driver who happened to be the unlucky victim of a rear-end collision.

So, to get cars like this approved in the U.S. will be a chore. But it's going to be a helluva lot easier with elected officials not indebted to the corporations.

And it's so bloody cute and actually carries more than two people. So. Now we know. And we can't pretend we don't.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Air_car_runs_on_compressed_air_0104.html

[bushmeister0]

152. The juxtaposition of the Rockefeller report and this story is just too good!

Does anyone sense a pattern forming here?

"President George W. Bush and his top policymakers misstated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq's arms programs as they made a case for war, the Senate intelligence committee reported on Thursday. . .

The committee voted 10-5 to approve the report, with two Republican lawmakers supporting it. Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri and three other Republican panel members denounced the study in an attached dissent.

'The committee finds itself once again consumed with political gamesmanship,' the Republicans said. The effort to produce the report 'has indeed resulted in a partisan exercise.' They said, however, that the report demonstrated that Bush administration statements were backed by intelligence and 'it was the intelligence that was faulty.'

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: 'We had the intelligence that we had, fully vetted, but it was wrong. We certainly regret that and we've taken measures to fix it.'"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080605/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc

Yeah, they're fixing it alright!

'You know, we got the intelligence wrong, boy our faces are RED. But since we're already there, we're just going to take over completely.'

These two stories, along with McClellan's book, is all dovetailing nicely into a one big fat impeachment indictment, but you know . . . Washington is asleep.

No one apparently cares. How many dots have to be connected before someone sends the FBI to the White House to start rounding up the War Criminals?

[LSK]

153. this will not pass Congress and President Obama will not be binded by it legally

[LiberalFighter]

157. And this will reduce wacko Muslims intent on terrorizing Americans how?

When Bush gets out of office it might be a good idea for the SS to put him in the Fuhrerbunker in Berlin, Germany (if it still exists) so that upset Muslims won't kill him. But then they will redirect anger at innocent Americans.

[chill_wind]

159. Iran: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

"Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rasfajani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation." He added, "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

Dick Cheney is working to force it through as fast as possible:

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favor a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want U.S. forces to dilute the power of the Shiia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against U.S. occupation, is likely to be split


More broken pottery barn politics.

[chill_wind]

161. I believe Obama WILL expose and confront this. More proof of Bush/McInsane's 100 yrs war.

And I don't think he will wait long. Even if it doesn't happen, he will campaign on it big. It is out now. It is not a secret anymore.

[BadGimp]

160. This could be nothing more than a political ploy by Bush

To claim a WIN in Iraq and dare the DefeatOcrats to unwind "Our Victory in Iraq".

I fear it could work to a degree.

[Dangerman]

165. That's way Saddam Hussein had to go...

So we can put military bases and steal the country's oil and piss off the Middle Eastern community!

Bush is an asshole, a murderous, greedy, self-centered one!

[and-justice-for-all]

167. Iraq: The 51st state of the union? nt

[OhBoyObama.com]

168. Bush is Bad better ideas @ OhBoyObama.com

Oh course he does that is so he can have a job with Halliburton after he leaves office! Obama will set things straight.

[Zhade]

171. Ultimately, it will be the Iraqis themselves who drive out the invaders.

And it will be horrifying.

[mac2]

189. The British, French, and Russians all had their wars for

Empire (Oil and resources of the area) and lost. Now we go bankrupt for the Empire. They profit we lose.

[fbahrami]

174. Secret?

Who else in the world (besides maybe people living in the U.S.) thought it was for any other reason?

Read history: imperial powers INVADE. The modern world is not any different.

[DirtyDawg]

175. Under what set of circumstance...

...could such an agreement be reached without Congressional, or at least Senatorial, approval? And further, just why couldn't an Obama Administration simply change it? This whole thing seems tragically desperate on the Bush/Cheney bunch's part. If they, in fact, confirm this, then I say Impeach their asses now. Don't let 'em even conduct the business of government...remand their butts to Gitmo.

[Kitty Herder]

176. So is Iraq to be a U.S. colony?

It's official now? Is that the idea? And then they call that victory? Don't they know the ordinary Iraqi people will fight back even harder if they do this? What the fuck are they thinking?

[Raster]

177. They're thinking they (1) want to keep control of Iraq's petroleum reserves, and at this time

that means KEEPING IRAQ'S OIL OFF THE MARKET; (2) keep a US presence in the Middle East without having to antagonize the Saudis and their Wahabist fanatics; (3) keep the flow of American capital to cheney*/bush*'s warmongering financial allies: HALLIBURTON, KBR, BLACK WATER!

They're trying to negotiate this before Obama wins the election, cause the signs are everywhere this will be a landslide.

Wake up America!:kick:

[Zambero]

178. So this is what McCain was referring to with the 100 years?

The Republicans mastered their "Voodoo Economics" while raising the national debt exponentially, and now we have "Voodoo Victory"! A nice concept, if one doesn't mind committing 80% of our miltary capablity and hundreds of billions of $$ in order to marginally stabilize a country we never should have invaded to begin with. I wonder if Bush will dust off the "Mission Accomplished" banner for another photo op, sometime around late October. Perhaps this was the 100-year plan that McCain was alluding to?

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

179. ..and renamed "New Texas"

.

[Razorblade02]

183. Question:

If Bozo Bush can circumvent the Geneva Convention rules,Then why can't Obama ignore what ever deal Bush puts into place? Seems to me he can and should negate anything from Bush that would keep us in Iraq!

[Vinca]

184. How can he enter into such an agreement without Congressional approval?

This is nuts and what's even more nuts is the failure of Pelosi to bring impreachment proceedings front and center.

[april]

187. I just cant stand to hear any more about the Ass and his delusions of grandeur

I HATE HIM>>>can't wait until he is out of office..our decider

[jcla]

190. Bush's next stop? IRAN

What a ****er... trying to control policy after he is out of office. Let's impeach BUSH & CO NOW!

[DirtyDawg]

198. I don't know if...

...George 'Fucking' Bush and Dick 'The Prick' Cheney are thinking in these terms but if not perhaps we should point it out to them. This entire middle-east thing they've gotten us into is so reminiscent of the Crusades of a thousand years ago, right down to this latests bunch of crap about establishing 'outposts' from which 'The Crusaders' could continue to launch attacks on the rest of the region, it's scary. And it's even more scary just how evil we have allowed these bastards to make us. If you read anything at all about the Crusades you find that they were ventures that attempted to mask themselves in the aura goodness, i.e., restoring the Holy Land for Christ and Christianity, but were, in the end, agents of evil that were looking for little more than to make money. God, if you're up there, smite these turds - George and Dick - before we have to do it for you...if it's not too late.

[Razorblade02]

199. Don't Count Out Martial law Before the Election..

I wouldn't rule out anything because they will try their best to keep power at all costs.

[sui generis]

200. I hate "revealed" in journalism

it's so . . . pentecostal.

Maybe I'm overly sensitive living down here in the cowboy belt buckle of the bible belt. Ah, just my undercaffeinated cranky two cents for the morning. snark snark, growl, grunt.

x(

[DemzRock]

201. I knew this was what they planned even before the war...

It's just obvious.

[happydreams]

204. This will be a crucial test for Obama. ....

The sad and sick fact is that the Bush junta has done exactly what it wanted to do: get us so tied up in Iraq that it will be nearly impossible to leave without losing this enormous "investment". The public will now be paying to maintain a system that benefits the oil interests and MIC. In this way the Bush fascisti have succeeded in turning the US government into a fascist dictatorship with long-term consequences no matter who takes office.
What is needed is a revolution, socialist or otherwise, that disentangles us from this royal shithouse mess. Nationalizing the oil industry and the armaments industries would be a good start. This will require accepting the investment as sunk costs and getting the faack out of Iraq.

[sarcasmo]

205. For oil, of course.

[greyghost]

209. Of course, this was the plan from the beginning.