• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Is Bush trying to commit U.S. troops to Iraq forever?

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
I think that we can all agree that Bush is an idiot. I'm not saying he is stupid....but he's an idiot nonetheless.

Now even given his track record, I don't believe for a nanosecond that the U.S. - Iraqi agreement that he is proposing wasn't fettered through every translator at the government's disposal to ensure that something like Bush is claiming happened.

Here's the scoop and more background info!

Reps. William Delahunt (D-Mass.) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) announced legislation Thursday to prohibit the use of federal funds to implement a long-term diplomatic and security agreement the Bush administration plans to strike with the government of Iraq.

The two say that any pact committing U.S. forces to fight on behalf of the Iraqi government must be approved by Congress.

But the White House says such concerns are much ado about nothing. At a briefing for reporters last week, a senior administration official said that the controversy stems largely from a sloppy Arabic-to-English translation of words in the Declaration of Principles that is to serve as the basis for negotiating the new agreement.

The Declaration of Principles states that the United States and the Iraqi government envision a ?relationship of cooperation? that will provide ?security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace.?

Those words ? "security assurances" ? have led Democrats to charge that the Bush administration is making a long-term military commitment to Iraq. They say such a commitment would turn the planned agreement into a treaty that would have to be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

But the senior administration official, who briefed two Politico reporters on the condition that he not be identified by name, said that the ?security assurances? phrase ?was something we struggled with, it really was.? He said the original Arabic phrase was ?translated in kind of an interesting way,? and that a better translation might have been, ?We?ll consult.?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Sounds like an alliance. Not unlike many we have across the world. For instance Japan, S. Korea, Germany, Italy, UK, Taiwan, Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and the Caribbean just to name a few.
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,089
12
76
fobot.com
US Troops have been in Korea for over 50 years
neither Obama nor Clinton will/would remove 100% of US troops from Iraq
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: FoBoT
US Troops have been in Korea for over 50 years
neither Obama nor Clinton will/would remove 100% of US troops from Iraq
Yup. We always knew this. You don't build a $5B embassy for the short term.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: FoBoT
US Troops have been in Korea for over 50 years
neither Obama nor Clinton will/would remove 100% of US troops from Iraq
Been in Germany and Japan for almost 65...

Anyone who says or believes the whole McCain wants us in Iraq are just plain Morons or Candidates that trying to alarm morons.

We have a vested interest there. even with a small presence ultra jihadis' will be pissed but it is a lose lose situation might as well pick the lesser of two evils and keep something there.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I don't see anything wrong with an agreement to cooperate with a Democratic Iraq on security matters... am I missing something here?

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY