This has been the plan all along. A bigger, better version of S. Korea. And it's been done right under the noses of Congress and the country.
Or were we supposed to think that we were going to turn over all those permanent bases and a monstrosity of an embassy to the Iraqi government? Sheesh, this one needed no speculation or dot connecting to see. -- sigh -- It's almost easier to forgive Americans for having fallen for the WMD propaganda than it is to give them a pass for not having seen that we have been planning to stay in Iraq for decades.
Posted by Marie at September 14, 2007 09:49 AMthank you Marie. Bush is building huge permanent bases in Iraq, and as Marie said, the biggest embassy in the world. The plan is clearly permanent occupation with a hand-picked puppet government that while it won't actually represent the varied peoples living within Iraqi borders, will provide a legitimatization for US plans and operations. We won't leave Iraq because Bush decides to, we won't leave Iraq because Congress cuts the funds, no. We'll leave Iraq when the oil reserves are empty.
Posted by T2 at September 14, 2007 10:16 AMOf course it is all about the oil. A freakin' huge kabuki dance in Washington with the Democrtas playing along, talking about withdrawal strategeries when everybody knows we are there to protect our way of life and status quo. One has to assume that the majority of the Democrats are in on the plan to stay in Iraq until we are guaranteed the natural resources beneath the Iraqui sands...
No one, I mean absolutely no one, all candidates combined are talking about the real issues that are before us. It's enough to drive a man to drink.
All sensible ideas, steve, but that would be hard ball---we seem to play with beanie bags.
As I wrote in the Korea thread below, Bushco's Korea analogy last night essentially proves the oil motivation theory of our invasion.
Who's on board with Koraq? Who's seen/done the "planning" for Koraq? Dems? Joint Chiefs? CENTCOM? Based on what we've heard reported on Fallon, this seems unlikely. Sure would be interesting for a few senate/house chairs to have some idea of what the Pentagon's plans are for CENTCOM, wouldn't it?
Why can't they hold hearings on just the "orders", history and plans behind the frickin' Iraq BASES? Would that be so hard? Suspicions are rising about what is really going on in those Dem heads...
Posted by euzoius at September 14, 2007 11:21 AMLet Iraq put the oil on the God Damn world market. Why in the fuck do we need to spend $12 Billion/month and countless American lives to pump 2 or 3mbpd out of Iraq. The world demands 88mbpd, we consume 22mbpd or about 25% and import almost 60%. Our foreign policy is being driven by our egregious importation of oil. Even if the neo-con insanely stupid wet dream that Iraq can pump 12mbpd and break OPEC and apparently become our sole importer, World prices will still be set by world demand. So it won't mean a flying rat fuck if the US is getting all the oil it needs while the rest of the world is an economic basket case from insane oil demand and price.
But I get it, that Hunt Asshole from Texas cut an independent oil deal with the Kurds which torpedoed the oil law. So, now I guess we have to be there to provide the muscle for this precious resource.
What a bunch of rat fucking bastards, they don't understand shit about shit and have concocted the stupidest foreign policy diaster ever in the history of humanity. Permanent bases? protect the biggest embassy on Earth, yeah right, in about 5 years watch that cost soar to $50 Billion a month and we'll still have $6/ gallon gas. Stupid fucks.
The same Fallon who called Petraeus a "ass-kissing little chickenshit?"
Yes, I'd like to see his take.
Posted by RAM at September 14, 2007 11:36 AM"But beyond that, if Bush lied to the country's face last night"
if? IF?!?!?!?!?
Posted by Gay Veteran at September 14, 2007 11:37 AMgaspare, right on the money dude. Stupid insane fucks is totally right.
The first MBA president, my ass.
...if it turns out that Bush didn't consult with CENTCOM before last night's speech, and if it turns out he lied to the American people about Iraq....
Then, Nancy "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi needs to put impeachment back on her table where it belonged in the first place.
Posted by Christopher at September 14, 2007 11:45 AMGaspare, exactly.
Bush cannot see that his ruinous policies have basically brought the economy to the brink of meltdown, with the dollar collapsing, oil imports tightening, global interest rates rising, a US recession coming on, a residential real estate wipeout, negative-savings-rate "consumers" at the end of their rope, out of control trade deficits, foreign capital starting to flee, and inflation naturally arising from this toxic stew. With all corrupt Wall street eyes waiting for the Fed to CUT, of all insane things, interest rates!
Bush never understood (or cared about) the slightest big picture imlications form his reckless, absurd "policies" foreign and domestic (gambles, frankly). We're going to pay a big price for this insane Bushco orgy of deficit-balloning militarism, cronyism and incompetence, and we most assuredly deserve to.
Posted by euzoius at September 14, 2007 11:48 AMUm, sorry for the spelling deficiencies. I may be a bit "worked up" today. Perhaps I'm in meltdown.
Posted by euzoius at September 14, 2007 11:52 AMyep euzois, and the really bad shit hasn't even hit the economy yet. Just wait till all these foreclosure really start ripping through real estate. and if, if people can refi, there still a motherload of debt rippling through the economy until next summer. The sub-prime resets hit "only" $50Billion this month, in March they peak to $120Billion. Hopefully a good majority will able to refi but I suspect even those that do manage to, they will get slammed with higher payments drawing even more money from consumtion. Bush conservatism has been the worst thing to hit America since the civil war.
Posted by gaspare at September 14, 2007 12:05 PMOh my GOD! We're staying in Iraq indefinitely?
Who would have thunk it!
Posted by Parallax at September 14, 2007 12:57 PMThe LA Times reports:
The British polling agency ORB, has conducted several surveys in Iraq and has concluded that civilian deaths in Iraq may top 1 million.
The military has said civilian deaths from sectarian violence have fallen more than 55% since President Bush sent an additional 28,500 troops to Iraq this year, but it does not provide specific numbers.
According to the ORB poll, a survey of 1,461 adults suggested that the total number slain during more than four years of war was more than 1.2 million.
ORB said it drew its conclusion from responses to the question about those living under one roof: “How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003?”
Based on Iraq’s estimated number of households of 4,050,597, it said the 1.2 million figure was reasonable.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iraq14sep14,1,1207545.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=4&cset=true
Posted by Christopher at September 14, 2007 01:12 PMlooks like Bush and Petraeus have already started backtracking on how many troops will actually come out. These guys are real jokers.
Posted by T2 at September 14, 2007 01:29 PMEuzoius,
What makes you think that an economic meltdown isn't precisely what the Bush base wants? Sure, it will be rough for a while. Diesel fuel for the yacht will be hard to come by and jet fuel? Forget it! The poor babies will have to pay through the nose!
But, you know, the other war they declared in the first few months of the administration, the one against the middle class? That's going swell. There really should be only two classes in America. The hereditay wealthy along with their well paid agents and the servants. It seems to me, they're happy with the way things are moving. You've got to take the long view! What would Paris do?
Posted by DeminNewJ at September 14, 2007 01:30 PMAm I the only one who wants to know who the other 36 countries are that are fighting with us in Iraq, like Bush claimed last night?
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at September 14, 2007 01:45 PMJohn B. - The first MBA president, my ass.
His performance is completely consistent with what I've seen from many MBAs. One example - filling in for a vacationing colleague, had to deal with an emergency on a potential new account, call it IF-Co . Within five minutes, concluded that the analysts handling IF-Co must be smoking something. Just said no to it that day and advised my colleague that he should continue to say no. Then an MBA came on board and took over the territory that IF-Co came from. Eighteen months later I heard the name of IF-Co for the second time in my life. The MBA had said "yes" and our employer was stuck eating $15 million on IF-Co.
(The MBA was subsequently promoted.)
Posted by Marie at September 14, 2007 02:03 PMAm I the only one who wants to know who the other 36 countries are that are fighting with us in Iraq, like Bush claimed last night?
Posted by snark at September 14, 2007 02:08 PMThanks, Snark. You da man.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at September 14, 2007 02:45 PMOr, thank you, ma'am.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at September 14, 2007 02:46 PMHellooooooo! Bush was announcing the end of phase one of the neocon agenda, and the beginning of phase 2. An "enduring relationship" was the keystone of the plan from the very beginning.
The end result of the whole Iraq caper was from the outset to be 1) a permanent controlling presence in Iraq (thus the "embassy" that looks more like a city-state in the middle of the nation's capital), 2) a permanent major military presence in Iraq (that's why they have spent billions building those "enduring" military bases complete with all the comforts of home, including such niceties as a miniature golf course and in one of them a car dealership), 3) Iraq set up to serve as a center of military, economic, and political operations in the region (thus the "embassy" that will also serve as a regional command and control center), 4) control of Iraq's oil production (and of course the profits therefrom) in the hands of American interests (thus the so-called "revenue sharing law" which is really a smoke screen for a law in which Iraqis give over their oil to the Americans and are allowed to realize a miniscule percentage of the profits.
That has been clear from the beginning, has it not?
Posted by Shirin at September 14, 2007 11:48 PM"it won't actually represent the varied peoples living within Iraqi borders"
Point of information: The last thing Iraq has ever needed is a government based on religious and ethnic identity. That is one big aspect of what has led to the mess today. With rare exceptions Iraqis have never made a bit issue of religion or ethnicity in the way they related to each other. Prior to 2003 Iraq was always a secular state. The story that the state tended to be dominated by Sunnis is a historic reality dating back to the Ottoman period, but its extent and the effect it has had on society has been greatly exaggerated.
Iraq's people have been living together peacefully and cooperatively for well over a thousand years with no history of serious, widespread or protracted sectarian conflict prior to March, 2003. Saddam Hussein, contrary to what has been drummed into the head of Americans, did more to divide Iraqis by identity than any other leader. However, even he was not able to do what Emperor Bush has accomplished - divide Iraq against itself.
Prior to the appointment of the puppet Governing Council, in which seats were carefully apportioned according to sect and ethnicity (which, by the way, systematically left out many of Iraq's minorities) Iraq had never in all its existence had a government based strictly on religious and ethnic identity. This rather racist concept was the idea of the Americans and their quislings who used it to their advantage, and not anyone else. Ironically, this model based on racism and bigotry resulted in "seculars" becoming a "minority" in what had once been a secular state.
From the moment the Americans first forced their way violently into the country they have based everything on the assumption that Iraqis are divided into Sunnis, Shi`as, and Kurds, with a smattering of Turkmens and generic Christians. (Christians are not one monolithic group in Iraq. There are many different types of Christians, some of whom are Arabs, some of whom are not, some of whom, like the Assyrians and Chaldeans, predate Arabs in the land by thousands of years, and some of whom - the Armenians - entered Iraq as refugees from genocide less than a century ago.) Thus anyone, such as the Yezidis and the Mandaeans, who did not belong to one of those groups was shut out of any consideration.
A proper Iraqi government should be based not on religion or ethnicity - that will always serve to divide Iraqis. It should be based on on commitment to the best interest of Iraq and its people, and on ability.
Posted by Shirin at September 15, 2007 12:35 AM"Am I the only one who wants to know who the other 36 countries are that are fighting with us in Iraq, like Bush claimed last night?"
No, you are not. I am very curious to see this list of countries, and specifically what their contributions are.
Posted by Shirin at September 15, 2007 12:53 AM