Iraq, Whitehouse in Negotiations for Long-term US Military Presence

We discovered a few months ago Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed an agreement, called U.S.-Iraq Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation, that would open negotiations towards a U.S. military presence in Iraq for an undetermined length. The democrats, especially Sen. Clinton during the debates, have recently become more vocal in their disapproval of the agreement, which would require the consent of the Iraqi Parliament, but not the U.S. Congress. They also claim that this is an effort to cement the U.S. presence in Iraq despite possible efforts by the next president to withdraw troops.

The official word is that the agreement would simply redefine the U.S. military role in Iraq and would not bind the next president’s decision capabilities, as well as replace the expiring U.N. mandate regarding coalition activities in Iraq.

Are you with me so far? Does this pass the smell test??

In a word, No.

First of all, the administration and Iraqi government want negotiations concluded around July and an agreement complete with signatures by the time U.S. elections arrive.

Secondly, and this is well, significant, the Center for Public Integrity reports the President Bush and his top officials “made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.” It is common knowledge without the CPI report that the administration issues false statements (the CIA leak case, Att. Gen. Gonzales’ involvement in the firing of many U.S. attorneys, just to name a mere fraction).

Fact: the administration if full of lies and liars. If the administration were a witness in a criminal trial, it would be indicted for perjury. If lightning struck liars, The White house would be a sea of smoking embers. There isn’t a bar of soap in all the world big enough to clean those dirty, rotten, fallacious mouths. Basically, we have a pants on fire situation here. Hell, he learned it from his father who tried to sell us a bill of goods on the level of the deficit during Sr.’s campaign in ’92. Guess it runs in the family.

The administration thinks Congress is simply playing politics and the U.S. population is too retarded to understand the means behind their ends. Karl Rove and Dick Cheney have better judgment than we do. Rumsfeld had better judgment than we do. Condoleeza Rice, for all her irrelevance, has better judgment than we do. We should just sit back and drink our Coors Light and watch Nascar and trust Bushie to take care of this war for us like good little patriotic citizens.

I’d rather choke on a hot dog.

Of course Cheney, uh…I mean Bush, wants to establish an agreement with the Iraqis before the next president can come in and stomp all over his withered legacy. He has convinced himself, to the point of psychosis, no doubt, that his intentions (not decisions based on REALITY) determine the outcome. A democrat with the same access to information he has will make far worse decisions than he would (though how that could happen when they would undoubtedly have better judgment, I’ve no idea).

Hopefully, those senators on the campaign trail can see their way back to Capitol Hill for a moment to either find some existing legislation or slap some together that would require their participation in this “agreement” with Iraq.

I understand we have just under a year left before he’s out, people. But realize that it will be one nail-biting, hair-pulling year. And I can’t wait for the roller coaster ride of pardons at the end! It’s sure to make Clinton’s and Bush Sr. before him look as innocent as one of those pukey Precious Moments figurines.

It’s almost enough to make me start praying. Almost. Not quite, though.

UPDATE: While the Washington Post says there is no historical precedent for such agreements to go before Congress,  The Boston Globe has issued an article with a different view, saying “After World War II, for example – when the United States gave security commitments to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and NATO members – Presidents Truman and Eisenhower designated the agreements as treaties requiring Senate ratification. In 1985, when President Ronald Reagan guaranteed that the US military would defend the Marshall Islands and Micronesia if they were attacked, the compacts were put to a vote by both chambers of Congress.”

There is a reason a democracy commands the participation of many. To trust the steerage of our country to few, who are not only untrustworthy when it comes to the simple act of telling the truth, but proven poor decision-makers, is insanity-defined.


0 Responses to “Iraq, Whitehouse in Negotiations for Long-term US Military Presence”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Scarlet Letter of Atheism


Bloggers' Rights at EFF

Blog Stats

  • 96,191 hits
WordPress Political Blogger

Top Clicks

  • None

%d bloggers like this: