Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Iraqi Lawmakers Pass Resolution That May Force End to Occupation

By Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted June 5, 2007.


While Washington lawmakers play procedural games with an out-of-control executive branch, Iraqi legislators are working to bring an end to the occupation of their country.
Advertisement

While most observers are focused on the U.S. Congress as it continues to issue new rubber stamps to legitimize Bush's permanent designs on Iraq, nationalists in the Iraqi parliament -- now representing a majority of the body -- continue to make progress toward bringing an end to their country's occupation.

The parliament today passed a binding resolution that will guarantee lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the U.N. mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose cabinet is dominated by Iraqi separatists, may veto the measure.

The law requires the parliament's approval of any future extensions of the mandate, which have previously been made by Iraq's prime minister. It is an enormous development; lawmakers reached in Baghdad today said that they do in fact plan on blocking the extension of the coalition's mandate when it comes up for renewal six months from now.

Reached today by phone in Baghdad, Nassar al Rubaie, the head of the Al-Sadr bloc in Iraq's Council of Representatives, said, "This new binding resolution will prevent the government from renewing the U.N. mandate without the parliament's permission. They'll need to come back to us by the end of the year, and we will definitely refuse to extend the U.N. mandate without conditions." Rubaie added: "There will be no such a thing as a blank check for renewing the U.N. mandate anymore, any renewal will be attached to a timetable for a complete withdrawal."

Without the cover of the U.N. mandate, the continued presence of coalition troops in Iraq would become, in law as in fact, an armed occupation, at which point it would no longer be politically tenable to support it. While polls show that most Iraqis consider U.S. forces to be occupiers rather than liberators or peacekeepers -- 92 percent of respondents said as much in a 2004 survey by the Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies -- the U.N. mandate confers an aura of legitimacy on the continuing presence of foreign troops on Iraq's streets, even four years after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

The resolution was initiated when a majority of Iraqi lawmakers signed a nonbinding legislative petition two weeks ago that called on the Iraqi government to demand a withdrawal of all foreign troops from the country.

While the issue of the Multinational Force's (MNF) mandate has been virtually ignored by the American media, it has been a point of fierce contention in Baghdad. Last fall, just after the midterm elections in the United States, a coalition of Iraqi nationalists in the parliament tried to attach conditions to the mandate's extension.

Iraqi lawmaker Jabir Habib (a Shia closely aligned with the al-Sadrist Movement) said in an interview last fall that the Iraqi Assembly had been poised to vote on the issue. "We spent the last months discussing the conditions we wanted to add to the mandate," he said, "and the majority of the parliament decided on three major conditions. These conditions included pulling the coalition forces out of the cities and transferring responsibility for security to the Iraqi government, giving Iraqis the right to recruit, train, equip and command the Iraqi security forces, and requiring that the U.N. mandate expire and be reviewed every six months instead of every 12 months."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq

Raed Jarrar is Iraq consultant to the American Friends Service Committee. He blogs at Raed in the Middle. Joshua Holland is a senior writer at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Yet another reason to end this war. now.
Posted by: Michael Boldin on Jun 5, 2007 1:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't need to wait for Iraqi politicians, or democrats, or republicans to tell us it's ok to end the war - their opinion shouldn't be the driving force.

This aggression war in Iraq was immoral and illegal since the day it started, and the time to end it is now. Not next year, and not next fall. Today, not tomorrow. Now.

I continue to hope for that quick end to the killing.

Some additional reading if you're interested:

"Top-Ten Reasons to Get Out of Iraq. Now!" - click here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If the news flash is true...
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 5, 2007 2:11 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush will have to do some world-class word-spinning to make his case for continuing the ongoing troop surge. And you can damn well expect him to try.

Despite 3,493 dead GIs and nearly 26,000 wounded in Iraq, with many more casualties to come plus the untold loss of civilian lives and limbs there, George W. will never stop being a dishonest commander-in-chief.

Just last week at his White House press conference, he said if we withdrew from Iraq, Al Qaeda would use it as a center for international terrorist operations. That is patently false. Because of the death and destruction Al Qaeda fighters have caused Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, they hate Bin Laden’s boys with a passion and will target them for extinction after our troops are no longer in country.

The Iraqi parliament apparently realizes that now, but Bush never will. At least, he would never admit it. Remember what he told Bob Woodward about leaving Iraq? Not even if Laura and his dog, Barnie, are the only ones supporting him. That's a lunatic talking, not a president.

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam veteran, lifelong registered Republican, Kerry supporter in 2004 and editor of the nonprofit investigative website, King-George.biz -- the only one with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I'm afraid you're right, EinMD. Posted by: HughScott
Yeah right...
Posted by: scmp on Jun 5, 2007 2:23 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like King George will give a s*** on the "UN mandate". He will continue to say that is our national interest to stay there, with or without a UN mandate. It is only wishful thinking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yeah right... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Yeah right... Posted by: scmp
» RE: Yeah right... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Yeah right...a little late Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Yeah right...a little late Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Yeah right...a little late Posted by: peacefullaim
» Spot On! Posted by: Just Curious
» RE: Yeah right... Posted by: Lauren
» Dream on Posted by: AndyF
» RE: Dream on Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Dream on Posted by: leafsong1
» Wrong on the law Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Wrong on the law Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Dream on Posted by: AndyF
» RE: Warranted Skepticism Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar
» RE: Warranted Skepticism Posted by: leafsong1
» legitimacy Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: legitimacy Posted by: leafsong1
?
Posted by: Knowmad on Jun 5, 2007 2:25 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The parliament today passed a binding resolution that will guarantee lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the UN mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose cabinet is dominated by Iraqi separatists, may veto the measure."

I'm unsure of the above Josh. Does it mean Malaki can veto the binding resolution, or veto the blocking of the extension of the mandate? Thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: ? Huh? Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: ? Huh? Posted by: Joshua Holland
What do Iraqis have to do with it? George Bush is The Decider!
Posted by: Rune on Jun 5, 2007 2:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, the arrogance of these people! What makes them think that just because Bush made all sorts of hoopla over them having a democratic government (after the U.S. eliminated the candidates it didn't like) and being a sovereign nation, they get to have a say in whether U.S. troops stay in the country, attracting and arming ever more terrorists and civil war combatants? Next thing you know, they'll think they can get away with managing their oil for their own benefit instead of signing it over for a song to international corporations that pull Bush's strings! Have they no decency or, at least, adult supervision to teach them how to be the subservient lackeys the Bush administration regards as well qualified leaders? I mean the U.S. blew the hell out of them twice and starved and shot missiles at them for a decade and half in between. Is this all the thanks they have to offer for all that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Breaking news blackout...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 5, 2007 2:42 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
US views Iraqi PM Talabani as a new, controllable Saddam - but this time, the US military will remain behind as enforcers

(The actual title of the piece was "Gates, general tout long stay in Iraq" - Seattle Times - no mention of oil.)

In Hawaii, Gates said he is thinking of "a mutual agreement" with Iraq in which "some force of Americans ... is present for a protracted period of time, but in ways that are protective of the sovereignty of the host government." Gates said such a presence would assure Middle East allies that the United States will not withdraw from Iraq as it did from Vietnam, "lock, stock, and barrel."

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, who oversees daily military operations in Iraq, supported the idea at a news conference where he also said September may be too early to judge the effectiveness of President Bush's troop buildup and revealed that the U.S. military is trying to reach cease-fire agreements with Iraqi insurgents.

Odierno said he sees benefits in maintaining a South Korean-style force in Iraq for years. "I think it's a great idea," he said...


According to google news, only Alternet is running this story...

This explains the quote : "This is totally unexpected," he said. "It is another example of the Prime Minister dismissing the views of the parliament and monopolizing all power."

The fix is in - Iraq will be saddled with a new US oil corp - friendly version of Saddam, who will be watched carefully by the US military. It'll never work,of course.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iraqi Resolution is as Pointless as....
Posted by: CatDad on Jun 5, 2007 3:00 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...passing a resolution making earthquakes illegal in California.

There's an elephant in the room and it's also in the Iraqi parliament and that elephant is the USA. If Malachi keeps pushing for troop withdraw, we will soon hear news that he's stepping down for "personal" reasons or to "spend more time with his family."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

U.N. resolution is Western class corruption through hierarchy, not U.N!
Posted by: Universal on Jun 5, 2007 3:06 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This so called U.N. resolution raises all the same issues regarding the corruption of words, principles, through class ideologies, and class hierarchies. We usually hear from NPR zionist radio, or class liberal news, corporate news, that the "U.N" passed some resolution or hypocrtical action based on corrupting, conflating the interests of the world with the class domination of Western states and Amerikan/Israeli control of the Security council, even when these resolutions and embargoes are based on violating the central charter of the U.N against aggression, illegal wars, illegal occupation, and most countries opposed to our policies, and the class whoring Western states who pretend they are the U.N.

A country that can veto all of its Security Council members routinely, like the U.S., on issues like Palestinian occupation, is itself dictatorial, corrupt and without a thread of legitimacy. A security council made up of Western imperial states, violating the very principle of the U.Nl. charter is also not the "UN". When you have most of the world shut out from this corrupt class exercise, class hierarchy, where democracy and universal principles are ignored for selectively going after Darfur, Somalia and genocide, but then allows the genocide of Amerikan and western class whoring states, and its fascist foreign policies, is seen by most of the world as a joke.

This is exactly the kind of class corruption of democracy that exists within class nation states, like Amerika and western class states, including Israel, and all attempts to claim both "democracy", and the "U.N" mantle for these double standards, class standards, is typical of the hypocrisy of Western standards. Countries that demand embargoes, sanctions against dictators of color, like African, Latin regimes, which we once supported, but then let their own war criminals free, are transparently two faced.

You cannot go after Iran for its cvilian nuclear program, while excluding the nuclear states of both Amerika and Israeli, nazis, fascists, refusing to support Disarmanent by all members. Such double standards, class standards, fascist, zionist standars, are exactly why the Iraqi people, even the Shia puppet regimes, and Arab people see Amerika and the Western world as duplicitous asses. The corporate media buys into this double standard, and their ideologcial propaganda against both Iran, and Iraq, as well as the Palestinian occupation, shows what class rot is all about. Next time you hear the word, "U.N", security concil, and U.N resolution, think of Orwell's double speak and Class dictatorship imposed on a global level.

The thin veneer of this double standard, and class corruption of the U.N. is about to come down on the ears of these corporate nazis, and zionists, along with the whoring European Union social democratic asses, who routinely participate in this charade.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maliki
Posted by: Joshua Holland on Jun 5, 2007 3:19 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Severtal commenters above have made comments to the effect that if Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki pushes for a withdrawal, he'll sooin be gone.

Maliki is not in favor of withdrawal, and does not support the resolution passed today.

As we discussed in some detail here:

"[There is now] an increasingly restless bloc of nationalists in the Iraqi parliament [opposed to] the administration of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose government is dominated by Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish separatists.

"By 'separatists,' we mean groups who oppose a unified Iraq with a strong central government; key figures like Maliki of the Dawa party, Shia leader Abdul Aziz Al-Hakeem of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq ("SCIRI"), Vice President Tariq Al-Hashimi of the Sunni Islamic Party, President Jalal Talabani -- a Kurd -- and Masoud Barzani, president of the Kurdish Autonomous Region, favor partitioning Iraq into three autonomous regions with strong local governments and a weak central administration in Baghdad."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Maliki Posted by: umrayya
» RE: Maliki Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Maliki Posted by: umrayya
Perhaps Tolstoy was right:
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Jun 5, 2007 3:40 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"War in this world can be stopped not by the ruling establishment, but by those who suffer from war. They will do the most natural thing: stop obeying orders." (Calender of Wisdom)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Without US Troops, the Government Collapses
Posted by: sofla100 on Jun 5, 2007 5:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only thing propping up the Maliki government is the American troops in Iraq. With the USA leaving, the country will disintegrate. However, this really is the best outcome as at this point, American troops cannot bring about stability and security in Iraq either. Therefore, we should leave and let the Iraqi's sort it out themselves. A possible Kurdish state or even an expansion of Iran's borders are possible outcomes, and they are acceptable and perhaps desirable. As for Al-Queda, our continued presence and the war permits and encourages its existence. When the USA leaves and the Iraqi's settle things, Al-Queda will cease to have any real following as it will no longer have a local "foreign enemy," to hold it together.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This resolution does matter...if only for image purposes
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 5, 2007 5:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If this is widely reported in the US by the corporate media, it will clearly reveal that Iraq is not a 'sovereign state' but rather is just one of the American empire's colonial possessions.

This view of the world as an American military empire is the last thing that the corporate media want to see promoted. It runs counter to all their assumptions, and every reporter knows not to present this viewpoint. Just go to Google News and type in "American empire" - the phrase is not allowed in the corporate media system.

The fact is that due to the insurgency and the resistance of the Iraqi people, the hydrocarbon law has yet to be finalized, and the formal auction of Iraqi oil supplies has yet to be carried out.

Check out the Chevron-sponsored Iraq Development Program website.

The "Iraq Oil, Gas, Petrochemical & Electricity Summit" was first scheduled for April 17-18 in Amman Jordan... Petraeus and GW Bush's 'surge' was supposed to stabilize the country by then. Then it was moved back to May 27-28 in Dubai, UAE. Now, once again, it has been moved back to 2-4 Sept 2007, again in Dubai (the new home of Halliburton).

Now, the US flew in Talabani so he could go on CNN and proclaim Iraqi support for the hydrocarbon law - which is the only thing that Bush&Co. really give a damn about.

The full text of the Iraqi oil law in pdf form is availabe at http://www.iraqdevelopmentprogram.org/ images/tools/iraqoillaw.pdf

However, there's a very very funny typo in the document, under section D, Ministry of Oil:

Second: The Ministry creates legislation as well as issuing regulations and guidelines to implement the feral plans.

A not so funny quote is this description of Article 9:

ARTICLE 9 of this law the ministers council creates an entity to be named “the Federal Oil and Gas Council”. The Prime Minister or his/her representative shall be
the president of this council, and the council should include:
1- Federal Government’s Ministers from the ministries of oil, treasury, planning, and
cooperative development.
2- The director of the Iraqi central bank
3- A regional government minister representing each region.
4- A representative from each producing province not included in a region
5- Executive managers from important related petroleum companies including the national Iraqi oil company and the oil marketing company...


So, it looks like executive managers from Exxon, Shell, BP, Halliburton and Chevron will have seats on the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council. Maybe the Feral Council really would be a better name, right?

With this kind of democracy, who needs fascism?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not western firms Posted by: MT.Cicero
» RE: Not western firms Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Not western firms Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Not western firms Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: Not western firms Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Not western firms Posted by: kelly.nickell
Our true colors, the Skull and Crossbones
Posted by: rabblerowzer on Jun 6, 2007 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“they'll (the Iraqis) think they can get away with managing their oil for their own benefit instead of signing it over for a song to international corporations that pull Bush's strings!”

We’ve been stealing natural resources from weak countries for so long, many Americans have come to consider it a God Given Right. In the past we used the World Bank and International Money Fund to squeeze and loot small countries, but now we invade and pillage with the whole world watching.

The old way was wrong but way less morally repugnant than bombing a country back to the stone age for profit. Now we’ve shown our true colors, the Skull and Crossbones. Our War on Terror has left us few friends, for we have become the perceived enemy of mankind.

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Worship of power - on the left and on the right
Posted by: SteveB on Jun 6, 2007 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there is one belief that unites Bush and his critics (or at least those critics who post here) it's that all things are possible to those who have power and the will to use it.

And, like Bush, his power-worshipping critics cling to this belief despite all evidence to the contrary.

The lesson of Iraq, to anyone who has been paying attention, is that there are limits to power, especially military power, and that having power means nothing if you don't have some measure of consent of the people you're attempting to rule over.

The lesson of Iraq, put in starker terms, is this: a ragtag bunch of insurgents, using old artillery shells wired to garage door openers, can bring the most powerful military in the world to its knees. It's a lesson that hasn't been lost on the vast majority of the 6 billion people on this planet, and yet it seems to have eluded many Americans, on the left and on the right.

The real question isn't whether we leave Iraq, but when, and in what fashion. Do we leave in an orderly retreat, or do we leave in a panicked retreat, plucking the last Americans of the roof of our new embassy? Many factors, including this vote by the Iraqi parliament, will determine that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I expected this type of response... Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: The paradox of occupation... Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: "civilized" vs. "uncivilized" war... Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» Any one remember Viet Nam. Posted by: james2021
But what about the OIL
Posted by: james2021 on Jun 6, 2007 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Big Oil still hasnt gottent the OK to steal Iraqi Oil, and sell it to us at record prices. We will NOT leave IRAQ until there is a viable alternative to OIL.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: But what about the OIL Posted by: TruePatriot5
right on time
Posted by: solrev on Jun 6, 2007 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that the only way Iraq can survive is a nationalist movement that can accommodate Shia, Kurds, and Sunni. A movement that can unite Shia and Sunni in Iraq will create a united Islam world wide in the end. As for the terrorists, the nationalist movement will throw them out just like the Bush puppet government. Islamic fundamentalists are going to kill a lot more Muslims than Christians or Jews. A united Islam scares the hell out of Christian and Jewish fundamentalists. They will also kill more Muslims than Christians and Jews. A united Islam is required before the Trinity can unite. The plan is on schedule, it has never been Bush’s plan. Bush is just a player on a bigger stage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Procedural games her--and there
Posted by: dayahka on Jun 6, 2007 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, let me see if I understand this. The US Congress is playing procedural games, but the puppet government of Iraq is playing serious games?

How about the US Congress is playing games and the Iraqi Congress is playing games? No one is listening to the US Congress, so what makes you think the UN or the US are going to listen to the Iraqi Congress?

This invasion and occupation will continue while Bush is in office and if any Republican (and maybe one or two Democrats) get elected...And there is no possibility of a unified Iraqi government; in Iraq as in any Muslim country, one or the other of the Sunnis or Shiites must dominate in order to have a unified state...As for the Kurds, they should have their own country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

carla janson
Posted by: hefalumpe on Jun 6, 2007 9:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
then our "government " will just say we have to stay there to keep the boogie man "terrorists" from coming to get us, and congress (who want the war to continue) and most of the american public (who are cowards and/or fools) will say ... oh, they i guess "we" (not really THEM of course) need to stay there and "fight for peace".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What was the vote?
Posted by: wobblies on Jun 6, 2007 10:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi~
What was the vote for controlling the presence of the MNFs? You wrote that the PM might veto the measure, but you don't put the numbers in context. Also, was it a binding resolution or a law? You used two different terms.

God Speed,
David

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What was the vote? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Thank you Posted by: wobblies
» RE: Thank you Posted by: Joshua Holland
It's nice to know
Posted by: willymack on Jun 6, 2007 10:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That SOMEBODY, somewhere has the grip on reality and the guts to oppose bush's insanity through parlimentary channels. It's not as though our elected representatives have those qualities, now, is it? Of course, the bushies will (attempt to) brush off any such action as contrary to the "war on terror" or the best interests of all concerned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Watch Bush squirm away from his own words- The mindset of the last American President
Posted by: xbj on Jun 6, 2007 11:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Look, the Iraquis asked us to help, and as long as they want us to stay, we're staying."

Well Mr. "Prez", they want us to get the hell out.

Squirm out of THIS one.

I know... nuke Iran why don'tcha? Gets Cheney and Israel off your back, changes the, uh, focus, puts the press onto something new, hey, win-win all around, huh?

C'mon, Georgie, what's another couple of million innocent lives? And hell, $10 a gallon gas prices, hey, that's gold to the oil companies!

Yep, the future just keeps lookin' brighter and brighter every day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sadrists
Posted by: brunowe on Jun 6, 2007 1:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joshua, what is the possibility that the Sadrists will bring down the government if Maliki tries to stand against the Parliament's vote. Although Sadr pulled his ministers from the govt., his delegates are still part of the governing majority.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sadrists Posted by: Joshua Holland
Asking US to leave....
Posted by: Jeanne on Jun 6, 2007 1:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I seem to recall a "promise" that if the Iraqis asked us to leave, we would. Sounds like they're asking us to leave....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Asking US to leave.... Posted by: peacefullaim
Recipe to Cut War Funding and Bring the Troops Home Now!
Posted by: CODEPINK on Jun 6, 2007 4:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Organizing a public phone-a-thon with activists in your community is a fun and empowering experience for organizers and participants alike! Invite folks to call their representatives on the spot to ask them to stop funding the war and bring the troops home. All over the United States local CODEPINK groups are setting up “congressional phone booths” armed with cell phones, scripts, card tables and plenty of encouragement and enthusiasm for grassroots democracy!

Here is the recipe for a gourmet phone-a-thon:

Fair weather and a wide busy sidewalk
Card Table (pretty and pink of course)
Big, bright explanatory poster (suggestions below)
Flyers
Sign up sheets on clipboard
Pens
Sheet with your representative and/or senator's local and DC office phone numbers
2 or more outgoing persons with cell phones
Camera to document

Poster suggestions:
PHONE-A-THON
Call your senators and representatives.
Right now! For Free!
Tell them to fund ONLY the safe withdrawal of our troops.
DON'T BE SHY.

Instructions:
Place one person with cell phone near the table. Scatter the remainder nearby. Holding flyers in one hand and a phone in the other and encourage passersby to call their senators and representatives. After someone stops and stares in amazement you say, "Yeah, you can use my phone." Dozens of people will make the calls to their senators and representatives and some will sign the email list.

This recipe works best during office hours. Callers are excited to know they are about to speak to a living human being who is actually sitting in a Congressional office.

It will be a first time for most of the callers and many will be nervous. You can hear people overcome their hesitation as they speak. By the end of the calls their voices will be stronger and more confident. They'll leave with fliers and with the resolve to call again. Take photos at your action and add a report back and photos to the CODEPINK website through our Local Spotlight. Click here to add your action report back.

You might consider holding the Phone-a-Thon outside your representative's office. People in your city may not know where their representative's office is, so this way they'll find out, and staffers can look out their window and see the calls in action! Or award a sticker to people who make a call. Like the "I Voted" sticker people get on Election Day, your stickers or buttons can say "I called my Congressperson today. Ask me how you can call!" (You can do a simple version of a sticker with address labels and a printer!). Make sure to encourage enthusiastic callers to programs the Capitol phone number into their phone so they can call frequently and keep a poster with a tally of how many people have called while you've been out that day, or throughout the summer, invite people add their tally mark after they call. Last but not least: alert the media! Let the local TV and news reporters know about your Phone-a-Thon—it's a great local story of democracy at work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Busted again
Posted by: autonomie on Jun 6, 2007 5:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Keep in mind this article, while looking back on comments made by the administration since the invasion:

"I can assure you that we all want to end this as soon as possible, so we can get on with the task of allowing the Iraqi people to form a new government." -- Colin Powell, April 2, 2003

"We will leave Iraq completely in the hands of Iraqis as quickly as possible." -- Condoleezza Rice, April 4, 2003

"We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice... If they were to say leave, we would leave." -- Bush, May 2007

As well as some polls showing that Iraqis don't want to be occupied (no kidding?)...

Poll shows 82% of Sunni Arabs and 69% of Shiites want a US withdrawal immediately, or after an elected government is in place. (Zogby) -- Jan. 2005

World Public Opinion poll finds 80% of Iraqis believe the US will have permanent military bases in Iraq, and that 47% of Iraqis support attacks against occupying forces. -- Jan. 2006

The supposedly sovereign Iraqi government takes steps to petition the United Nations to end the US military's immunity from Iraqi laws. If the Iraqi government were sovereign, couldn't it just declare an end to immunity itself? -- July 2006

A US State Department poll, leaked to the Washington Post, finds 65% of Baghdad residents wanting an immediate withdrawal. -- Oct. 2006

These statements were taken from the Iraq war timeline. Check it out for a complete chronology of events in the war in Iraq.

Combined, the above statements and poll results show that Iraqis live under foreign military occupation. Furthermore, these statements show that the Iraqi government has no power in matters that affect the occupation.

Hence, if the Iraqi government demands an end to the occupation, a withdrawal will result from other reasons, such as the US trying to maintain a shred of domestic credibility.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Will Bush Be a Liar?
Posted by: sloopy312 on Jun 6, 2007 7:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On broadcast TV President Bush said that if the Iraqi government now in power wants the U.S. military to leave Iraq then he would bring them home. He declared that Iraq would be free to govern itself as they saw fit without interference from us.
It will be interesting to see if Bush was telling the truth. He will not be able to duck those words I heard him say, and if he is a liar then all America will know him for what he is-a megalomaniac who needs to be impeached

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

C-Span the Zionist Neo-Con Network
Posted by: alohabunny on Jun 6, 2007 11:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I laughed at the reference to the Iraqis' Parliment is not watching enough C-Span or they would know that only Al Malili is the "Decider" (Like Dear Leader Bu$h in this country)..........Brian Lamb, who controls the program content of "his" C-Span, can not squeeze in enough Zionist PNAC members in the scant 24 hour program cycle, his American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation programing is sandwiched in between warmongering speeches from our Zionist Neo-Cons in Congress and their shadow Israeli government that runs this country.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nobody is going anywhere (except to Iran)
Posted by: Reader11722 on Jun 7, 2007 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Zionist control this administration and will never leave the Middle East. Only Israel benefits from these endless Middle East wars. Iraq is the beginning. As we commit war-crimes in Baghdad, the US gov't commits treason at home by opening mail, eliminating habeas corpus, using the judiciary to steal private lands, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia America Deceived (book), conducting warrantless wiretaps and engaging in illegal wars on behalf of AIPAC's 'money-men'. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier by Mossad) and the US will invade Iran.. Then we'll invade Syria, then Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon (again) then ....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Permanent designs
Posted by: lalaverim on Jun 8, 2007 12:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While most observers are focused on the U.S. Congress as it continues to issue new rubber stamps to legitimize Bush´s permanent designs on Iraq, nationalists in the Iraqi parliament -now representing a majority of the body - continue to make progress towards bringing an end to their country´s occupation.
To quote someone, they should take penis enlargement pills and shut up:)
The law requires that any future extensions of the mandate, which have previously been made by Iraq´s Prime Minister, be approved by the parliament. It is an enormous development; lawmakers reached in Baghdad today said that they do in fact plan on blocking the extension of the coalition´s mandate when it comes up for renewal six months from now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

col. jackleg
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Jun 8, 2007 1:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joshua Holland reports that Bush projects U.S. military presence in Iraq for the next 50 years ala our South Korea model. Iraqis want us to get the hell out and stay out. Sounds like an impasse. IMPEACHMENT WILL BREAK IT AND SPARE THE WORLD MORE BUSH LUNACY!!!! But, in this glorious republic impeachment is "off the table."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

top ten reasons to remain committed to a stable, peaceful, and pro-western iraq.
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Jun 11, 2007 6:51 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
10. leaving iraq would result in the violent deaths of tens of thousands of iraqis

9. iraq is not in the midst of a civil war. it is being bled by a miniscule minority of iranian and al qaeda supported religious/nationalist fanatics who have no agenda other than to kill innocents.

8. retreat from iraq will embolden islamic extremists to commit greater violence in the middle east and abroad. note this happened when a similar superpower retreat occurred in afghanistan (remember afghanistan, osama, the base....starting to get it leftist)

7. any American retreat in time of war emboldens future enemies to stay in the fight expecting a typical US retreat thereby resulting in far greater US deaths in future military actions.

6. al qaeda, iran, and any other rogue will use iraq as a springboard for further attacks against the west.

5. the increase in the price of oil will send the US into recession thereby eliminating the tax base that will destroy social services, entitlements and generally destroy the US standard of living and our security by forcing limits on defense spending in a dangerous wo