This is excellent blogging, which as far as I am concerned is reporting of facts with actual analysis.
So Bushco and Maliki have "signed an agreement" to "negotiate" our relationship---could be another big announcement over nothing, as there's not much "there" there. Looks like this is the vehicle to get around the Iraq parliament's right to approve any extension of the UN US occupation mandate, which was set to occur next month. So much for "democracy", ha-ha.
It's hard to care very much about what is "planned" for Iraq, given the level of diplomatic, fiscal and human catastrophe it is and will continue to be. But I do derive satisfaction from reported lines like the "deal" including "preferential treatment for American investments". Um, yeeeessss.....
That's what this whole invasion was all about, as we TLCers stated plainly for years and years. Now, it cannot be denied to history any longer. The jig is completely up, Deadeye Dick.
I doubt that anyone can dictate the future of Iraq given its present state, and it's hard to see how any type of nationalist, islamic Iraq will cotton to this permanent US occupation, er, strategic partnership (guffaw).
This is what Iranian friendly SCIRI wants? This is definitely not what the Sadrists envision. How about our new sunni-insurgent "allies"? Withdrawal of US troops had been their principal demand. Who in Iraq supports Maliki on this? Seriously. How does Maliki show his face in public after this?
Posted by euzoius at November 26, 2007 04:17 PMWhat did Bush do today? Why he set into motion yet another piece of phase three of the neocon agenda for Iraq: Establish a permanent military presence.
That bastard son of a dog.
Posted by Shirin at November 26, 2007 04:25 PMWhy can't Bush simply follow the law? What he and malaki did today was form a treaty - A TREATY! no matter what the imbecile calls it, it is still a treaty needing congressional approval. If Bush was so sure of his position, why not let the American people see what he is doing? We have such a loser for preznit.
Posted by Tom at November 26, 2007 04:28 PMShirin, what "groups" in Iraq, which Iraqis, will support a permanent US presence in Iraq?
Posted by euzoius at November 26, 2007 04:32 PM"Looks like this is the vehicle to get around the Iraq parliament's right to approve any extension of the UN US occupation mandate..."
Actually no, it is something much more - and much more sinister than that. This is the next step to establishing the permanent military presence that was one of the original goals of the invasion. This is what will keep those permanent - excuse me, enduring (someone PLEASE explain to me how this is not a distinction without a difference!) military bases populated. You know, the small American cities they have spent billions building all over Iraq complete with miniature golf courses, swimming pools, and who knows, maybe even a Wal Mart here and there. The ones that completely belied the wingnut claims that they really, really, really and truly were gonna withdraw as soon as the Iraqis showed how grateful they were for it all.
F****** liars.
Posted by Shirin at November 26, 2007 04:43 PMA note to Shirin,
I can learn.
US. Iraq. Out, NOW!
J
Posted by jaynicks at November 26, 2007 04:47 PMWay to go, J!
Posted by Shirin at November 26, 2007 04:50 PMIraq’s government will embrace a long-term U.S. troop presence in return for U.S. security guarantees
So Iraq will let our troops stay and continue to fight in their civil war and continue to get maimed and killed. And in return we get to protect them, meaning our troops get maimed and killed. Am I missing something? What's in it for us? Oh, there was something about oil, right?
Posted by at November 26, 2007 05:03 PMIsn't it nice that Bush can sign anything he wants and, without the force of a ratified treaty, it can be thrown out the day his successor is sworn into office.
It is a really good issue for Democratic candidates though.
That was me above
Posted by CG at November 26, 2007 05:05 PM"Bush can sign anything he wants and, without the force of a ratified treaty, it can be thrown out the day his successor is sworn into office.
"It is a really good issue for Democratic candidates though."
Do you seriously believe that a Hillary or a Barak Obama, or - heaven forbid, ANY of the Republicans - would not be delighted to be presented with this fait accompli? When did then Bush regime become the only American administration to have imperialist ambitions toward the Middle East? Do you seriously believe that the Democrats are not every bit as imperialistically inclined as the Republicans, if not moreso?!
Posted by Shirin at November 26, 2007 05:08 PMto answer a previous question: the Kurss want us there.
Bush's plan was to falsely promise victory so he could continue the occupation and complete his permanent bases. That was mission accomplish.
Oh my God!! Really?...You mean we'll never leave Iraq?
this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.....this is not news, it's bullshit.
Of course we're staying...that was and is the plan. What were people thinking?
Posted by Parallax at November 26, 2007 06:14 PM"the Kurss want us there."
Actually, no, the Kurds do not want you there. Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis of all persuasions want you gone. When broken down by sect and ethnicity these same polls show that a clear majority of every group wants you gone.
The only people who do not want you gone are those who either profit from or are dependent upon your presence, and I daresay even a good many of them don't like you being there and resent you like hell.
Posted by Shirin at November 26, 2007 07:46 PMIncredibly good news. We are NOT abandoning the mission. Apparently The Idiot in the White House has outFOXed the weisels and chickens in Congress. The US will stay in Iraq indefinitely -- signed in the form of a treaty; this act pre-empting once again the weak knees, fools, phonies and traitors in Congress -- and another bonus for US business (Halliburton, Bechtel, Boot Scootin' Kellog, Blackwater and the rest). America will have an advantage in negotiating contracts in Iraq. And the Coalition of the Unfaithful will not.
War can pay off. As I said a while ago, and not tongue-in-cheek, "Give WAR a Chance!"
My day..maybe my decade...has been made.
Now it's time to make some serious investments.
And remember well -- and I challenge anyone to disprove or negate the following:
Conditions at Abu Ghraib Prison improved markedly AFTER the invasion by Coalition troops.
"Conditions at Abu Ghraib Prison improved markedly AFTER the invasion by Coalition troops."
So, this is the standard to which you hold yourselves? To be not quite as bad as Saddam Hussein? Congratulations, Americans, on your aspiration to come in second in the Great Race To The Bottom!
PS According to several Iraqis who were imprisoned in Abu Ghraib both before and after the American invasion, conditions did not improve after the invasion, so I guess in that race you are tied for first.
However, you are the clear winner in the overall race to the bottom in Iraq. Who else but the Americans could have the majority of Iraqis wishing for the return of Saddam?
Posted by Shirin at November 27, 2007 06:45 PM