Bush defines freedom as "noise."

[bushmeister0]

The WaPo:

"MESEBERG, Germany, June 11-- President Bush said Wednesday he was confident the United States would reach an agreement on the role of U.S. forces in Iraq, calling opposition to a U.S. proposal part of the 'noise' of a freer Iraqi society. . . There's all kinds of noise in their system, and our system,' Bush said. 'I think we'll get the agreement done"

(Nice to know he considers legitimate opposition to his policies in a "free society" merely "noise.")

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/11/AR2008061100420.html

Iraqis opposed to the US moving in for the next hundred years can apparently make "noise" about their impending absorption but they don't have enough "freedom" stop it.

Those among the noisiest Iraqis include Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician on parliament's foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who says, "If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you here anymore.'"

And, Haider al-Abadi, a parliament member from Maliki's Dawa party, who says, "What the U.S. wants is to take the current status quo and try to regulate it in a new agreement. And what we want is greater respect for Iraqi sovereignty. . . Signing the agreement would mean that the Iraqi government had given up its sovereignty by its own consent. And that will never happen."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/10/AR2008061003415.html?hpid=topnews

Obviously, all crazed followers of the radical, anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

No? They're all members and close associates of our puppet al-Maliki?? Al-Maliki himself, though, isn't making any noise, right? He's our good buddy, after all.

What? He is?

It's not only the 'sovereignty" issue that's causing all this noise (and the black mailing over the $40 billion in Iraqi accounts the US is holding), it's also the small print that says the US doesn't have to come to Iraq's defense if attacked.

WaPo:

"U.S. negotiators also said the agreements would not obligate the American military to protect Iraq from foreign aggression, Iraqi officials said, a promise they believe was a fundamental part of a declaration of principles signed by Bush and Maliki last winter.

'The prime minister is not happy about this,' said Askari, who helped negotiate the declaration of principles, which outlined the strategic framework. 'This is not what we agreed on.'"

So, we and our contractor friends can come and go as we please, kill and imprison Iraqis citizens willy nilly and set up bases where ever we want for as long as we want, but if the Iraqis need us for anything, we're not obliged to help them at all. Such a deal!

More small print :

"Bush administration officials say a deal is necessary to preserve order in the battered country, and that a new agreement 'will not involve permanent bases, nor will it bind any future president to troop levels."

You can take that to the bank. Our word is as good as gold; the definition of "word," though, is another matter.

The WaPo points out that the term "permanent bases" is somewhat fluid:

"In a Senate hearing in April, a senior Defense Department lawyer acknowledged under questioning by Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) that the Pentagon had no definition for the term 'permanent base' and that it 'doesn't really mean anything.'"

If I were the Iraqis, I'd get a few good lawyers and a real big magnifying glass before I signed anything W. & Co. put in front of me.

I'd say the same for Congress, but they apparently couldn't care less about this whole staying in Iraq for the next hundred years issue. No noise at all coming from the other end of Pennsylvania Ave.

[larkrake]

1. Dont treaties have to be approved by congress?