The Latest McSame Gaffe: Withdrawing Troops "Not Too Important"

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
When it comes to war, the hits keep rolling when Sidney opens his mouth.

"Maybe 100 [years]. That'd be fine with me."

"Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb."

Not too important.

But this makes sense if you know about the Neo-Con agenda. It's all about an extended, large-scale presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

US Seeks 58 Bases In Iraq

BAGHDAD ? Iraqi lawmakers say the U.S. is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews that the Iraqi government rejected this proposal, along with another U.S. demand that would effectively hand over the power to determine whether a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the U.S. and Iran.

"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al-Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far," he said.

Other conditions sought by the U.S. include control over Iraqi airspace up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation upon two years of notice from either side, lawmakers said.

"It would impair Iraqi sovereignty," said Ali al-Adeeb, a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa party. "The Americans insist so far that it is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq ... if we come under aggression we should define it, and we ask for help," al-Adeeb said.

Both al-Saghir and al-Adeeb said the Iraqi government rejected the terms as unacceptable.

They said the government wants an American presence and a U.S. security guarantee but wants to control security within the country, stop indefinite detentions of Iraqis by U.S. forces and have a say in U.S. forces' conduct in Iraq.

At present, the U.S. operates out of about 30 major bases, not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts, according to a U.S. military map.

Al-Maliki returned Monday from his second visit to Iran, whose Islamic rulers are adamantly opposed to the accord. Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said after meetings with al-Maliki that Iran had "no doubt that the Americans' dreams will not come true."

Congress has also demanded a say in the agreement, but the Bush administration says it is planning to make this an executive accord, not subject to Senate ratification.

Neither of the two likely presidential contenders, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., had any immediate comment on the talks, hoped for completion in July, under way in Baghdad.

The Bush administration conceded for the first time that it may not finish the agreement before a new president takes office.

A senior administration official close to the talks said it is "very possible" the U.S. may have to extend the existing U.N. mandate that expires at the end of the year.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
58,157
12,331
136
58 bases is ridiculous. I'm not even sure I'm willing to believe that part of it.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
It would be interesting to see what the actual proposal was rather than what is spouted by a politician to the press.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
control over Iraqi airspace up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors

Yah kan't ceep a good ockipier down with basic human rights, national sovereignty and the rule of law.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
It would be interesting to see what the actual proposal was rather than what is spouted by a politician to the press.
That would require the Bush administration showing more transparency than it ever has since taking office.

More

Sources

Confirming

The

Story

Of course, the Bush administration is doing it's famous Gold-medal-winning backpedal to deny it.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Every one is talking about it, yet no one is providing any details.

This at present, seems to be based on a he said this. Where is the paper trail?

Everyone is quoting each other without providing the hard facts.

If the agreement is so secret, then why is everyone talking about it.

No US politician/staffer has provided a copy, neither has an Iraqi, not the Brits.

Given the anti-war attitudes, there should be something going around to vberify what is being "negotiated". Or it is not as bad as people want it to be made out as.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Even if GWB&co can get it through our congress and the Iraqi government, a sovereign Iraq could revoke permission for the US to use those bases at any time in the future.

GWB&co has a pile of unrealized goals and this is just one more dream. And ever since GWB&co lost GOP control of the US congress, there are thankfully many checks on what GWB&co can get away with even trying. And as for the larger world, they too watch GWB with wary caution, also standing ready to limit what GWB can try, eagerly awaiting the day when GWB and his bunch of fellow bozo's exit the world stage. The larger world will welcome a saner US president, but a US President willing to try to continue the policies of GWB&co will be met with universal world hostility.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
A whole lot of talk and not much detail. Like mesiah like son I guess?
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,678
2,430
126
I'd love to see Obama draw a line in the sand and publically state that no "status of forces" agreement entered into by GWB will be honored by Obama, if he is elected, unless the agreement is submitted to and approved by Congress first.

I'm sick of this back-door stuff from Bush (literally and figuratively).
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Has anyone ever seen, or *gasp* read, the status of forces proposal referenced in the OP and elsewhere?

anyone at all!?
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
He's not worried about American troops being in Iraq, but he is worried about American casualties in Iraq.

In response, Mr. McCain, I am fairly sure that there were no American casualties in Saudi Arabia on September 11th, 2001.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Forgive me if I am mistaken, but isn't there some piece of paper somewhere that says that the executive is allowed to negotiate treaties but that the advice of the Senate is required and a 2/3 majority is needed to enact them?

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: palehorse
Has anyone ever seen, or *gasp* read, the status of forces proposal referenced in the OP and elsewhere?

anyone at all!?
What level security clearance do you have?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
58 bases is ridiculous. I'm not even sure I'm willing to believe that part of it.

I'm not willing to believe much, if any, of it at this time. Too often reports like this are later proven wrong.

This part makes me highly suspicious:

A senior administration official close to the talks said it is "very possible" the U.S. may have to extend the existing U.N. mandate that expires at the end of the year.

The UN has already declared that they will not renew the mandate unless requested to do so by Iraq. And the Iraqi parliment has already passed a law that says they must approve any request to the UN. I.e., Al Maliki does not have the authority to do it himself.

Cliffs, the USA cannot extend the mandate, contrary to what the article says.

Fern
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: palehorse
Has anyone ever seen, or *gasp* read, the status of forces proposal referenced in the OP and elsewhere?

anyone at all!?
What level security clearance do you have?

Higher than you, which leaves me without that much less doubt on what you've seen.