the Lie… »
« too little, too late…
the national priorities…

Posted on Thursday 5 June 2008


 

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…

    Reuters reports: "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.
When I read the Independent report last night, my reaction was visceral [TREASON]. I was in and out all day, but stopped by for a look for coverage of this story in the blogs or Google. The only thing I found was a response by Ryan Crocker that was something of a denial. I missed this piece by WaPo columnist DanFroomkin [my idol in American Journalism]. From this, I’m thinking that Ryan Crocker’s sort-of-denial is a smoke screen or a lie. Considering this sentence, "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." And then there’s the letter from Iraqi parlimentarians to Representative Delahunt. I also recall these lines from the original article in the Independent:
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.
They’re doing it again – lying, being secretive, bullying people, wanting immunity, letting Cheney have a free rein, trying to control the next Administration. They just won’t stop trying to ram this crazy notion that we can invade the Middle East and basically operate from it’s center with an army of occupation. How they can rationalize that the Iraqi will be our allies when we treat them like this in their own country is beyond me.

It’s a pitiful state of affairs that the three central national priorities for America for the next six months are:
  • To keep our own government from bombing Iran.
  • To keep our own government from trying to permanently occupy Iraq.
  • To keep our own government out of the hands of a new President who might try to perpetuate this madness.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.