Comments on: Iraqi parliament unlikely to approve long-term presence. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:35:47 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: RickS http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-2/#comment-4168303 RickS Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:50:28 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4168303 "Where does it say that the Iraqi MPs want all US troops out? It just calls for a timetable to withdraw US troops. No details on how many of them." -Dreamcrusher I said "pre-surge levels" because you made a comment about 170,000 troops, the current surge level. If that wasn't your intentions, then I apologize for taking you out of context. That being said, no where in the petition as its reported does it say that those MPs ant to simply REDUCE US troop levels, but it does say they want to WITHDRAW US troops. One question: If the Iraqi MPs wish to keep a smaller contingent of US forces in Iraq, why didn't they say so in their petition? I hate to be critical, but you seem to be taking considerable liberty with your interpretation of what exactly is the intent of those who signed the petition. TP is simply presenting an argument that since a majority in the Iraqi parliament signed a petition that called for a timeline for the withdrawl of US forces from Iraq, with no mention of allowing a smaller force remain indefinitely, then it is save to believe that this same parliament would not support permanent bases in Iraq. I guess you can call it just a hunch, but it seems to be more plausible than your argument, I hate to say. “Where does it say that the Iraqi MPs want all US troops out? It just calls for a timetable to withdraw US troops. No details on how many of them.”
-Dreamcrusher

I said “pre-surge levels” because you made a comment about 170,000 troops, the current surge level. If that wasn’t your intentions, then I apologize for taking you out of context.

That being said, no where in the petition as its reported does it say that those MPs ant to simply REDUCE US troop levels, but it does say they want to WITHDRAW US troops.

One question: If the Iraqi MPs wish to keep a smaller contingent of US forces in Iraq, why didn’t they say so in their petition?

I hate to be critical, but you seem to be taking considerable liberty with your interpretation of what exactly is the intent of those who signed the petition.

TP is simply presenting an argument that since a majority in the Iraqi parliament signed a petition that called for a timeline for the withdrawl of US forces from Iraq, with no mention of allowing a smaller force remain indefinitely, then it is save to believe that this same parliament would not support permanent bases in Iraq.

I guess you can call it just a hunch, but it seems to be more plausible than your argument, I hate to say.

]]> By: RickS http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-2/#comment-4167914 RickS Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:31:02 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4167914 Yes, because voting against the presence of 170,000 American troops is the same as opposing indefinite bases with a much lower number troops. Majority of Iraq Lawmakers Seek Timetable for U.S. Exit BAGHDAD, May 11 — A majority of Iraq’s Parliament members have signed a petition for a timetable governing a withdrawal of American troops, several legislators said Friday. The withdrawal would depend on the growth and maturity of the Iraqi security forces, to ensure that the departure would not create a security vacuum and accelerate the sectarian conflict, the petition’s sponsors said. “The troop withdrawal would move in parallel with the buildup of Iraqi troops, but their stay should not be for a long time,” said Saleh al-Igili, a member of the parliamentary bloc allied with the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, which sponsored the petition. I can't find any reference to the petition just wanting the US forces in Iraq to be reduced to pre-surge levels. It seems to me that the Iraqi MPs are wanting ALL US troops to be out of the country once Iraq's security forces can take on missions by themselves. Unless I'm reading it differently. Facts have a known liberal bias, you know. Yes, because voting against the presence of 170,000 American troops is the same as opposing indefinite bases with a much lower number troops.

Majority of Iraq Lawmakers Seek Timetable for U.S. Exit

BAGHDAD, May 11 — A majority of Iraq’s Parliament members have signed a petition for a timetable governing a withdrawal of American troops, several legislators said Friday.

The withdrawal would depend on the growth and maturity of the Iraqi security forces, to ensure that the departure would not create a security vacuum and accelerate the sectarian conflict, the petition’s sponsors said.

“The troop withdrawal would move in parallel with the buildup of Iraqi troops, but their stay should not be for a long time,” said Saleh al-Igili, a member of the parliamentary bloc allied with the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, which sponsored the petition.

I can’t find any reference to the petition just wanting the US forces in Iraq to be reduced to pre-surge levels. It seems to me that the Iraqi MPs are wanting ALL US troops to be out of the country once Iraq’s security forces can take on missions by themselves.

Unless I’m reading it differently. Facts have a known liberal bias, you know.

]]> By: Tender Chicken http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-2/#comment-4167637 Tender Chicken Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:36:41 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4167637 GEORGE W. BUSH WILL NOT TAKE MY COUNTRY AWAY FROM ME OR MY FELLOW COUNTRYMEN. GEORGE W. BUSH WILL NOT TAKE MY COUNTRY AWAY FROM ME OR MY FELLOW COUNTRYMEN.

]]> By: bilbobaggins http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-2/#comment-4167608 bilbobaggins Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:21:56 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4167608 Bush may think that he has done an end-run around Congress. But, in order for him to continue to build his permanent bases, he needs funding and there is nothing that Bush can do, short of Marshall Law, that can make the Congress give him the money for the bases. Hopefully the Democrats take the ball and run with this one. Not one red cent more for any permanent installation in Iraq. And, not one red cent more for funding private armies. Take away the funding for both of these and Bush will have to bring our troops home. He can't maintain the US presence in Iraq without the private army. Bush may think that he has done an end-run around Congress. But, in order for him to continue to build his permanent bases, he needs funding and there is nothing that Bush can do, short of Marshall Law, that can make the Congress give him the money for the bases. Hopefully the Democrats take the ball and run with this one. Not one red cent more for any permanent installation in Iraq. And, not one red cent more for funding private armies. Take away the funding for both of these and Bush will have to bring our troops home. He can’t maintain the US presence in Iraq without the private army.

]]> By: bilbobaggins http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-2/#comment-4167607 bilbobaggins Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:19:26 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4167607 <em>Thanks again, Think Progress, for that daily dose of nuance. Comment by DreamCrusher</em> You're welcome troll, I didn't think that you did nuance. Thanks again, Think Progress, for that daily dose of nuance.
Comment by DreamCrusher

You’re welcome troll, I didn’t think that you did nuance.

]]> By: Badger http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-2/#comment-4167602 Badger Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:11:00 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4167602 Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton called on President Bush today to clarify the recently signed Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America to confirm that the United States does not plan to place any permanent bases within Iraq and instead plans to begin the phased redeployment of U.S. troops. In a letter to the President, Senator Clinton expressed great concern that the Declaration of Principles did not explicitly indicate that the United States will not seek and will not maintain permanent military bases in Iraq, despite the clear will of Congress and the American people. "The President must make it crystal clear that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq," Senator Clinton said. "They would damage U.S. interests in Iraq and the broader region, and I will continue to strongly oppose them." Hillary is right in wanting some clarification about our bases in Iraq... are they permanent? How long is Not Permanent? And why are they pouring all that concrete?? Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton called on President Bush today to clarify the recently signed Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America to confirm that the United States does not plan to place any permanent bases within Iraq and instead plans to begin the phased redeployment of U.S. troops. In a letter to the President, Senator Clinton expressed great concern that the Declaration of Principles did not explicitly indicate that the United States will not seek and will not maintain permanent military bases in Iraq, despite the clear will of Congress and the American people.

“The President must make it crystal clear that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq,” Senator Clinton said. “They would damage U.S. interests in Iraq and the broader region, and I will continue to strongly oppose them.”

Hillary is right in wanting some clarification about our bases in Iraq… are they permanent? How long is Not Permanent? And why are they pouring all that concrete??

]]> By: osage http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-2/#comment-4167599 osage Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:05:36 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4167599 I never thought I'd live to see a day when a Middle Eastern government would refuse to sell out their country while an American government was doing everything it could to sell out ours. Bush has been a colossally incompetent, dishonest and unconscionably destructive civil servant who has served the interests of our enemies much, much more than he has served the interests of the American people. Never has an American president been more complicit in damaging Americans and America. I never thought I’d live to see a day when a Middle Eastern government would refuse to sell out their country while an American government was doing everything it could to sell out ours.

Bush has been a colossally incompetent, dishonest and unconscionably destructive civil servant who has served the interests of our enemies much, much more than he has served the interests of the American people. Never has an American president been more complicit in damaging Americans and America.

]]> By: Bush Cover Ups http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-2/#comment-4167598 Bush Cover Ups Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:04:54 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4167598 <b>Also Iraq wants full sovereignty ,,,,,,,, which is great</b> Also Iraq wants full sovereignty ,,,,,,,, which is great

]]> By: Bush Cover Ups http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-1/#comment-4167595 Bush Cover Ups Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:04:21 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4167595 Bush is begging Maliki to stay in Iraq or Bush is finished Bushes life depend on maliki Bush is begging Maliki to stay in Iraq or Bush is finished

Bushes life depend on maliki

]]> By: pete http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-1/#comment-4167564 pete Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:35:44 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4167564 Oo! The DC troll found a new term to misuse. Oo! The DC troll found a new term to misuse.

]]> By: Leftside Annie http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-1/#comment-4167563 Leftside Annie Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:35:01 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4167563 Yo, Dreamy - you bustin' to add another star to Old Glory, buddy? Yo, Dreamy – you bustin’ to add another star to Old Glory, buddy?

]]> By: Uncle Ho http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-1/#comment-4167543 Uncle Ho Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:14:30 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4167543 Seeing how Bush ignores the U.S. congress and the American people, just exactly why would he pay ANY attention to the Iraqi parliament or their people? Bush-the self-appointed neo-Nazi dictator. Seeing how Bush ignores the U.S. congress and the American people, just exactly why would he pay ANY attention to the Iraqi parliament or their people?

Bush-the self-appointed neo-Nazi dictator.

]]> By: sacopenapa http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-1/#comment-4167540 sacopenapa Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:12:43 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4167540 The USA's form of government today is FACISM, not democracy! Corporation taking over government, militarization of its government and corporate Wars! USA=FACISM The USA’s form of government today is FACISM, not democracy! Corporation taking over government, militarization of its government and corporate Wars! USA=FACISM

]]> By: Chris L http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-1/#comment-4167529 Chris L Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:05:24 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4167529 Shia government can fix that in a minute. There is no Sunni opposition, The Kurds only care about their new nation, so whats the problem? Maliki recognizes Iraqs’ colonial status, in return he gets to be Shah for life. Comment by moondancer — November 27, 2007 @ 3:54 pm # I posted this on another thread, but it applies here as well. Although there have been recent drops in violence, 2007 is still the deadliest year of the war so far. Most agree that the drop is due to ethnic cleansing (there is no one left to kill) and the cease fire called by Muqtada Sadr. “American commanders have said that they are aggressively negotiating with Sadr officials to help keep his militia, the Mahdi Army, in check. But if the cease-fire ends, if Mr. Sadr’s whims shift, that could push violence up again–no matter how many troops are here. Basically, the Americans find themselves playing the role of facilitators, hoping that both sides stick to their newfound strategies, and doing everything they can to keep it that way.” http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=116 Muqtada Sadr’s whims may just shift sooner than you would think. “Violence is down in Iraq for the moment, but it will not stay down without political progress. And we’re still a long, long way off from anything close to that. Via the AP: The debate over rehabilitating former members of Saddam’s ruling Baath Party has been a major obstacle to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s push to stem support for the insurgency by bringing minority Sunnis into the political process. A parliamentary session on Sunday adjourned in turmoil after lawmakers loyal to anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr pounded their fists on their tables in protest.” http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=140 Shia government can fix that in a minute. There is no Sunni opposition, The Kurds only care about their new nation, so whats the problem? Maliki recognizes Iraqs’ colonial status, in return he gets to be Shah for life.

Comment by moondancer — November 27, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
#

I posted this on another thread, but it applies here as well.
Although there have been recent drops in violence, 2007 is still the deadliest year of the war so far. Most agree that the drop is due to ethnic cleansing (there is no one left to kill) and the cease fire called by Muqtada Sadr.

“American commanders have said that they are aggressively negotiating with Sadr officials to help keep his militia, the Mahdi Army, in check. But if the cease-fire ends, if Mr. Sadr’s whims shift, that could push violence up again–no matter how many troops are here. Basically, the Americans find themselves playing the role of facilitators, hoping that both sides stick to their newfound strategies, and doing everything they can to keep it that way.”
http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=116

Muqtada Sadr’s whims may just shift sooner than you would think.

“Violence is down in Iraq for the moment, but it will not stay down without political progress. And we’re still a long, long way off from anything close to that. Via the AP:

The debate over rehabilitating former members of Saddam’s ruling Baath Party has been a major obstacle to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s push to stem support for the insurgency by bringing minority Sunnis into the political process.

A parliamentary session on Sunday adjourned in turmoil after lawmakers loyal to anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr pounded their fists on their tables in protest.”
http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=140

]]> By: Zimzone http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-1/#comment-4167528 Zimzone Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:05:19 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4167528 Hi RALPH! Hi RALPH!

]]> By: Buckie Boy http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-1/#comment-4167524 Buckie Boy Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:01:59 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4167524 But we are not done bringing democracy to the Iraqi people yet, there are still a few that are alive. Bush/Cheney Hague Trials '09 Buck Fush But we are not done bringing democracy to the Iraqi people yet, there are still a few that are alive.

Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials ‘09

Buck Fush

]]> By: Blue Stater http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-1/#comment-4167522 Blue Stater Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:00:31 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4167522 As to the newest "troll" or whatever he is, I did report him. As I said when I did so, the right will use his comments (namely #12) to smear all the good people here on TP. As to the newest “troll” or whatever he is, I did report him. As I said when I did so, the right will use his comments (namely #12) to smear all the good people here on TP.

]]> By: joeldbloom http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-1/#comment-4167520 joeldbloom Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:00:11 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4167520 Funny, We don't have checks and balances, but Iraq does. OK, not funny. Funny,

We don’t have checks and balances, but Iraq does.

OK, not funny.

]]> By: Veritas http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-1/#comment-4167515 Veritas Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:57:16 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4167515 Ralph: I'm ROTHLMAO about comment #35! Kudos! Ralph: I’m ROTHLMAO about comment #35! Kudos!

]]> By: Blue Stater http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/comment-page-1/#comment-4167511 Blue Stater Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:56:03 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/iraqi-parliament-unlikely-to-approve-long-term-presence/#comment-4167511 They don't respect the US Constitution, do we expect them to respect Iraq's? They don’t respect the US Constitution, do we expect them to respect Iraq’s?

]]>