Is this a Bush Retreat from Iraq? Am I reading this wrong?

[dutchdemocrat]

Is George Bush about to finally make one intelligent decision? To sound the retreat in Iraq?

It this a policy switch that has been prompted by the rapid deterioration of the security situation and by the failure of the US-appointed Iraqi governing council to agree on a way of drawing up a constitution.

Other failures include alienating every other international lawmaking and humanitarian body.

Is this the policy switch (read, 'defeat and admission of failure' ) that has largely been prompted by the spectre of an election in 2004. Which currently looks as unwinnable as the guerilla war.

Has the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw supported it acknowledging the policy in a BBC interview: "It could well be that we hand over power to the Iraqis more quickly that planned."

---- Which means, 'we need to get the fuck out and find someone else to blame.'

Is Paul Bremer currently back in Washington to work out the best way to dump the problem back on Iraqis.

---- Am I dreaming or is this a pivotal point? Can I make this statement someday soon?

"The brief and illegal US/UK Occupation will leave Iraq with a legacy of humanitarian and environmental tragedies from which it will take the country decades to recover."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3263545.stm

[arcane1]

1. Halliburton has already had the oil fields signed over to them

so in a way, the mission is already accomplished. We could pull out every soldier and Iraq would still be a corporate asset instead of a country

[htuttle]

19. Nope, that isn't actually the case

and that is why Bush is well and truly screwed.

As Naomi Klein pointed out in a recent article (and spoke about on Democracy Now recently), nearly every international legal authority says that the US has absolutely no legal right to privatize Iraq's infrastructure. There is simply no real legal standing to all those sweetheart contracts, and all that backs them up is the presence of the US military (and the CPA).

Once the US leaves, and whatever puppet government Bush props up falls down, ALL of those contracts won't be worth a warm bucket of spit.

The legal situation is SO risky that Bremer's own 'former' insurance company will NOT underwrite any business ventures in Iraq. Nobody will.

Well, nobody but you and me. That's right, these contracts are all backed by the US Import/Export Bank -- that's us. So once he pulls the military out, and a real government of some kind takes over, guess how much it's going to cost us? (got another $87 billion or so handy?).

And THAT is why Bush is really screwed on Iraq.

And so are US Taxpayers.

[jpgray]

20. Yes, that's about the size of it (nt)

[sable302]

22. Bullseye!

Bingo!
Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner.

And dumping them, yet again, after US promises democracy and freedom and whatever will really make people love us even more.

Bush is screwed, no doubt about that.

(edit: typo)

[calimary]

31. One can only HOPE he's screwed. NEVER was anyone more deserving!

I find myself waking up every day wondering if karma will EVER catch up to this asshole.

[dutchdemocrat]

2. Other thread on Alternet article on power turnover

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=698286

[SlavesandBulldozers]

3. oh come on

"The brief and illegal US/UK Occupation will leave Iraq with a legacy of humanitarian and environmental tragedies from which it will take the country decades to recover."

i would say that statement could use a little revision. I mean, Jesus, the place wasn't exactly Paris when we got there.

[Lindacooks]

4. You're right

and we made it worse.

[gratuitous]

6. True enough

But now Iraq is new and improved with thousands of depleted uranium casings and scads of land mines that weren't there before. A couple of "gifts" from the corrupt Bush administration that will continue giving long after Lil George is permanently retired to his pig farm.

[Maple]

7. Well it WAS

Paris before the dozen years of sanctions and bombings.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

8. Freeper! Freeper! Freeper! Oh, wait, this isn't the lounge.

Sorry. Was looking for the Insult Thread.

[neuvocat]

10. Actually it was

but then that was before Hussein was placed in power.

[leftofthedial]

14. Paris or no, whatever it was

we bombed the shit out of it, destroyed the civil authority structure and killed over 50,000 citizens.

what do you suggest we revise in the statement?

[dutchdemocrat]

17. Thank You

I was getting a littled 'weirded out' by some of the reactions here. WTF?

I thought I was tame.

[Scott Lee]

18. Its pretty accurate

Approximately 50,000 Iraqi civilian dead leave a lotta bereaved families. And you don't get over that stuff so quickly.

[truthspeaker]

5. quote

quote: "Other failures include alienating every other international lawmaking and humanitarian body."

The neocons consider that a success, not a failure. In their minds, all other nations are out to get us, so if they agree with what we're doing it must mean we are caving in to them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Well the problem is

this will open the killing fields a la Cambodia,

Why we should not have invaded.

But Herr Rove knows what is going on huh?

[wuushew]

11. Bush will get away with this unfortunately...

The only reason we are getting any information out of Iraq is that American soliders are fighting and dying there. Afghanistan is an absolute shithole and we don't hear one peep out of mainstream media.

Iraq could erupt into bloody civil war and we certainly would never hear about it. Was the conflict in the Congo ever over reported? I think not.

[asjr]

12. iraq

I feel the WH has been spooked and they are trying to "fix" the situation. Not because of anything going on in Iraq. They can always say "we won" and get out saying it is now up to the Iraqis. It is because next year is an election year and nothing is more important to this WH. Greed over generosity. Power over compassion. The cancer that is growing in the body of America started with Republicans in their onward push to a dictatorship. It has spread far and wide and especially in the media. They have it all now and are not going to surrender it. Whether with BBV or standing guard at the polls so undesirables cannot vote, they are in it for the long haul. They are going to stop at nothing to gain for themselves. I feel they have done it in the past. And I don't even have on my tin hat.

[aquart]

27. Why? What's left to steal?

[Fixated]

13. ....

It's not retreating...yes it is. Instead of giving it over to international forces, the Bush team would rather cut and run.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

15. Jack Straw is on a plane to Washington

(well he was when Channel 4 news was on 2 hours ago, so he's probably got there. Also, the British version of Bremer -- Jeremy Greenstock -- is purported to be en route. I'd say something big is on the cards, but quite what I'm not sure.

Just to add another couple of things to the mix ;)

[kentuck]

16. He wants people to "think" he is going to withdraw our troops...

We should encourage him in his efforts.

[onecitizen]

21. If you look at bush..........

lately, he ain't lookin' too good. 'bout the worse I've ever seen him. Yeah, he's getting ready to pull out of there and claim another victory. I think the guy is seriously deranged.

[tnlefty]

23. Aawww, poor baby

Not lookin' too good eh? What a shame! I find it hard to believe that the annointed one would be having a rough time of it. (heavy sarcasm) I hope that he looks worse tomorrow, and worse the day after that and the day after that......

[dflprincess]

24. It would appear that the pResident who says he

pays no attention to polls is starting to worry about his chances of actually winning the next election.

[rustydog]

25. Can you say Vietnamization? That was a failed policy then

and will be a failed policy here.
So, we didn't learn from the lesson called Vietnam.
What you are reading is proof that Bush Co. and it's "coalition of the willing" partners see the political fallout of this ill-conceived folly called Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Even though General Zinni (I believe) told Bush* Co it would take 170 to 200 thousand troops to secure post-war iraq and they told him he was effing nuts...he is being proven correct in his estimation.

With that being true, Bush is looking at reducing troop numbers in 2004 even though that will endanger the number of troops left behind. Bush*s poll numbers are nearing the basement and he is responsible for the deaths of 400 american troops, FOR WHAT?
And civilians and troops are asking that very question.For What?

Bush* will bring troops home and try to make it look like the tanked economy is recovering and IF he wins reelection, you will see an increase in troop deployment to Iraq and a reinstituted DRAFT in 2005.
What you read in the BBC article is a precursor to this.
The Iraqization of the country won't work: We tried it in Vietnam an it was an abysmal failure.

[ewagner]

26. What if??????

What if the news that came out immediately after the invasion is true? The news that Iraq has only about 25% of the oil reserves it actually said it had?

If that were true, then there wouldn't be any reason for Halliburton to stay there anymore would there? Then it wouldn't make any difference if the sweetheart contracts went "poof" as soon as an Iraqi government took control, would it? A quick turnover would make a whole lot of sense.

What do you think?

[goforit]

28. No .........These snakes have more up their sleeves than meets the eyes

I'm sure Syria and Iran may be next on their Imperial list.

[Bucky]

29. I think the list may have changed, or even been scrubbed...

until 2005, that is.

But seriously, they're corrupt, but not moronic. They know the world is not as simple as their Chuck Norris movie fantasies led them to believe two years ago when they planned this idiot strategy.

They've got to be rethinking the meme that we can just "knock over one terror state after another" and walk away with brank new user-friendly democracies in the wake. Ending Iraq as a soft target campaign issue has got to be a MAJOR priority on Karl Rove's to do list.

[Zan_of_Texas]

30. Well, keep an eye on Russia too.

I don't claim to have this figured out. But something is definitely up. Remember, Russia and France had deals on the ground in Iraq before the US went in. Russia supplies oil to Israel at a premium price, because Middle Eastern countries won't sell to Israel. Russia was against the US intervention in Iraq. Russia has one of the largest abilities to export oil in the world.

Russia jails one of its richest men, head of Yukos Oil, Mr. Khodorkovsky. About the same time, George H. W. Bush resigns from the Carlyle Group.
"The Carlyle Group, an investment bank that retained the elder Mr. Bush as an adviser until a few weeks ago, has a close business relationship with Mr. Khodorkovsky." -- NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/05/international/europe/05YUKO.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

Could the "increasing sophistication" of the "Iraqi resistance" be the result of arms or financing by the Russians? Could Iraq be a replay of the early Afghanistan conflict, a proxy for a Cold War skirmish between Russia and the U.S.? (After being sold by neocons as a proxy war for Israel to remake the map of the Middle East, per PNAC?)

Like I said, I don't have this figured out. Plenty of ammo for rampant speculation though!

[linazelle]

32. Pulling out early from Iraq is not the answer in my opinion

I hate to see soldiers die but I also hate the prospect of seeing Iraq become a warzone and a threat to world peace after we leave.

This is truly a quagmire--and Bush should be damned if he stays and damned if he goes. He shouldn't get off that easy because he should have given this more thought before he invaded.

I can hear the CONs' criticisms now as I, for one, lambast them if Bush pulls out. They'll say we whine and criticize about everything. I will point to information available before war which warned that we would end up in this type of a dilemma. That is all.