In Debate Over Permanent Bases In Iraq, U.S. Seeks Authorization For War In Iran
In Debate Over Permanent Bases In Iraq, U.S. Seeks Authorization For War In Iran
The ongoing negotiations between Iraqi leaders and the Bush administration over the future role of the military occupation “have turned into an increasingly acrimonious public debate.”
The Bush administration’s demand for 58 permanent bases in Iraq — a near doubling of the current 30 bases — are causing Iraqis to warn that the status of forces agreement would be “more abominable than the occupation.” The administration is reportedly holding hostage “some $50bn of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement.”
The reason the White House is so hell-bent on signing a long-term agreement may have less to do with Iraq and more to do with Iran. According to press reports of the ongoing negotiations, the Bush administration is seeking the “power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq.” Ali al Adeeb, a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Dawa party, confirmed:
The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq…if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help.
The administration’s request would seemingly allow the U.S. to brand Iran as an enemy of Iraq and attack Iran in the name of defending Iraq pursuant to a legal obligation under the status of forces agreement.
Other details from press accounts confirm that the Bush administration has one eye on Iran in the course of its negotiations with Iraqis. The Washington Post explains that the administration is seeking “the prerogative for U.S. forces to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government.” Moreover, the U.S. wants control over Iraq’s airpsace:
The American negotiators also called for continued control over Iraqi airspace and the right to refuel planes in the air, according to [Sami al-Askari, a leading Shiite politician], positions he said added to concerns that the United States was preparing to use Iraq as a base to attack Iran.
Since the administration is unlikely to get an Iran war authorized through Congress, it’s instead trying to sneak it through the Iraqi parliament.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Uh, Calling Iran an enemy of Iraq is like calling the US an enemy of Iraq.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:32 pmBoth countries support the current ‘government.’
Now, THIS IS F’ING SCARY STUFF!
Sounds like Darth has been working overtime.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:34 pmOh, I see. The Bushies aren’t really trying to secure 58 permanent bases in Iraq. They really just want one. The one base just happens to encompass the entire country, its air space and its sovereignty.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:36 pmThe good news is “Iraq is sovereign”, as Condi handwrote years ago. Look closely and you’ll find an astericks for national security and democratic makeup.
http://arisfreedomswitch.blogspot.com/ 2008/ 02/ freedom-to-invade-more-than-once.html
June 11th, 2008 at 5:40 pmpaleolib Says:
Oh, I see. The Bushies aren’t really trying to secure 58 permanent bases in Iraq. They really just want one. The one base just happens to encompass the entire country, its air space and its sovereignty.
Yea, then they will rename it USS Iraqi Freedom, put a “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” banner on the capital and let dubya pull his codpiece out of mothballs and land on the main deck.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:40 pmAll I can say is these people are F*****g crazy. What is the point of this, anyway. Do they think they can screw things up so bad in the middle east it will allow them to declare marshal law and remain in power? I just don’t understand the point of this lunacy.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:44 pm“the Bush administration is seeking the “power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq.””
I think the Bush administration should definitely be considered the #1 authority on “aggression against Iraq”… you know, in a “takes one to know one” kind of way.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:45 pmMI_lib,
A minor nit to pick (which I point out to everyone who commits this offense):
it’s “Martial” law (as in, being of the military)
June 11th, 2008 at 5:47 pmMI_lib Says:
————————————————————-
I just don’t understand the point of this lunacy.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
The point of this lunacy, MI_lib, is three little letters: O…I…L
Oh yeah, and “DoD $ to Halliburton” too…
June 11th, 2008 at 5:49 pmgreen917,
Thanks for setting me straight. I knew it was wrong the second I punched the Submit button, but it was too late then.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:49 pmIsn’t the Federal Reserve Bank of New York a privately owned bank, primarily owned and operated by Jewish Zionists? And doesn’t the fact that they control Iraq’s money sound eerily similar to the fact that the Palestinians’ revenue is controlled by Israel?
June 11th, 2008 at 5:55 pmI think it would be an incredibly bold and effective move for Obama to come out now, before this thing gets through the Iraqi parliament, and state the following:
As President of the United States, my first job will be to protect and preserve the great document that is the United States Constitution. We have suffered several constitutional crises under the current administration, and I fully intend to return a reverence for Constitutional Governance to the office. President Bush is currently attempting to bypass the congressional authority over the ratification of foreign treaties in order to make permanent an unwanted occupation of the country of Iraq. Unwanted by Iraqis and unwanted by a majority of Americans. Therefore I will, on my first day of office, unsign any ‘Status of Forces’ agreement for Iraq that includes any demand for the continued presence of American forces in the country of Iraq. Any such agreement is a de facto treaty, and as such must be submitted to the United States Congress for ratification.
http://www.dailykos.com/ storyonly/ 2008/ 6/ 7/ 195141/ 4543/ 996/ 531914
June 11th, 2008 at 5:56 pmBush and Cheney are both spoiled children. They will attack Iran - probably a week or so before having to leave ‘their’ White House. Crime and chaos is all the GOP can do well.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:58 pmWhen will the Democrats really start to defend the interests of this country. We have seen precious little attempt thus far to save the republic. We have seen the rise of an elite, wealth based government representing the interest of the few by perverting the very organs of our democracy to serve their interests. After Watergate there had been a sense of real accomplishment within this country. The citizens felt that democracy and the constitution prevailed. The congress enacted bipartisan legislation to clamp down on the worst offenses of a president willing to break the law in order to gain his own ends. Whistle blowing became more of a virtue. There were actually heroes who went against the grain to expose lawlessness and corruption.
Those days are long gone. We live in a country that has placed self interest over all other considerations for our ruling elite. We see it in the government with King George as president willing to subvert the government departments into a political arm of a single party state. We see it in the cronyism as contracts and jobs are handed out not on the basis of qualification but rather relationship. We see it in congressmen all too willing to line their pockets to serve corporate and wealthy interests. We see it in the unholy fusion of business and government to create a corpocracy as envisioned by the K Street project.
Why should any individual not lie cheat and steal? The accumulation of power and wealth establishes moral worth in this nation. Our heroes are corporate executives who make millions upon millions for themselves by bending every rule, adapting any tactic (no matter how low, amoral if not illegal) and celebrate their own self interes to the exclusion of all else, No wonder why we see the same attitude slip over into our religion (God rewards the faithful with great wealth) and the very political process.
Our YoYo culture encourages a “win at all cost” attitude for we all know that the prize for coming in second is thing more than a kick to your face. Our personal responsibility and accountability excludes any other justification for losing, being poor, disabled or disadvantaged than the individual’s lack of moral value.
We now see this thinly veiled attempt to continue an imperious control of a country that we invaded to establish as a democracy without any self interest. We see a president bound and determine to mire this country in war that will last for decades and only serve to enhance the emperor’s dictatorial power.
Where are the heroes in our government willing to stand up and put an end to this farce. The Republic ended not with a protest but instead to a thunderous round of applause.
Obi wan Kenobi, we need your help.
June 11th, 2008 at 6:04 pmIn debate over impeachment, RU seeks permission to escort Bush and Cheney to Den Hague…
June 11th, 2008 at 6:06 pmEverything Bushco does is criminal, everything.
PLEASE congress, IMPEACH BUSH…has he not caused enough damage in the world yet?
We have fallen from a once great nation to a nation of criminal appeasers.
June 11th, 2008 at 6:08 pmI find it sad that the only 2 people in Congress with a pair are Dennis the K and Wexler. I hope the people in their Districts are as proud of them as I am. And that more people are as ashamed of the rest of that band of wankers that are stone silent as I am!
June 11th, 2008 at 6:14 pmWhen will Obama pull the troops out? 1st year? 2nd year? Maybe, maybe not? What?
June 11th, 2008 at 6:22 pmSo we decide that Akhmadenijad picking his nose is an act of war. We lob a few bombs at Iran. In retaliation, Iran bombs Iraq.
Nothing bad happens to the USA. So what is the Iraqi’s problem ?
June 11th, 2008 at 6:26 pmAlejandro Says:
When will Obama pull the troops out? 1st year? 2nd year? Maybe, maybe not? What?
No, that should be WTF is this all about?
June 11th, 2008 at 6:26 pmGee Roger2, when did Iraq become a member of NATO?
Did you take the same Geography class that Little Jimmy Imhofe did?
June 11th, 2008 at 6:34 pmRrOoGgEeRr wth?
June 11th, 2008 at 6:42 pm….do you support collective defense?.let me guess, a non-answer…don’t bother. -=RrOoGgEeRrSs=-
All this talk of collective defense and Osama, the guy who DID attack America is, still on the loose.
June 11th, 2008 at 6:52 pmJesus christ…This kind of shit from bush43 doesn’t surprise me but you and I all know this won’t be on any news program tonight except maybe Jon Stewart.
June 11th, 2008 at 6:53 pmRogered up the arse is a member of the Bush Butt Kisser Club.
What a stupid, broken tool.
June 11th, 2008 at 6:55 pmWe have to establish permanent bases because no one will let us stage attacks from their land. This may be our only opportunity. You think anyone’s going to volunteer for that?
June 11th, 2008 at 7:00 pmAnd Roger2 still didn’t answer my question about he/she/it attending the same Geography class as Imhofe.
Sigh!
June 11th, 2008 at 7:06 pmIf Roger2 is really a Repug tool, they need to go back to Sears and resupply.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:10 pmrogerse Says:
The administration’s request would seemingly allow the U.S. to brand Iran as an enemy of Iraq and attack Iran in the name of defending Iraq pursuant a legal obligation under the status of forces agreement.
Well, it works for NATO.
Article 5
June 11th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
_______
Cute. Except for the minor little point that Iran and Iraq are currently strengthening ties.
Also, in NATO, Great Britain does not have the exclusive right to decide what constitutes an attack on, say, Germany, and the exclusive right to determine how and when Germany can respond to said attack.
That’s not “collective defense.” It’s keeping Iraq as a permanent subsidiary.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:31 pmWhy does roger2 even bother to come out of the closet?
June 11th, 2008 at 7:35 pmrogerse Says:
The administration’s request would seemingly allow the U.S. to brand Iran as an enemy of Iraq and attack Iran in the name of defending Iraq pursuant a legal obligation under the status of forces agreement.
Well, it works for NATO.
Not surprisingly, you miss the point entirely. If someone attacked a NATO ally, that NATO ally would request assistance (or not). We would not determine for that ally that they required assistance and attack the third country. Bush wants to have that authority, even if the Iraqis don’t agree. That’s point 1.
Point 2. As addressed by Toasterhead, this isn’t “collective defense” because the US is not threatened by Iran. In fact, neither is Iraq, which gets us to point 3.
Point 3. Iran has no practical interest in invading Iraq. Unlike you and Dubya, they remember how that worked out the last time and how many young Iranians (and Iraqis) died. As many as 1,000,000 Iranians alone died in that conflict.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:40 pmrogerse Says:
upside99 Says:
And just like the other thread, your side-stepping the question…most irritating f;ck ever.
Actually, you’re far more irritating because you constantly create irrelevant “questions” that you demand he respond to, even though they’re illogical and unrelated to the point in discussion. You’re the one doing the side-stepping.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:41 pmrogerse Says:
upside99 Says:
And why do you even pretend to answer anything…btw, you still support desertion?.
Thanks for so quickly making my point for me. upside99 never said he supported desertion, or said anything remotely similar and, more to the point, desertion had absolutely nothing to do with the issue, which was the treatment of a Medal of Honor recipient’s father and his expressed views on the occupation. Since you were incapable of addressing that issue, you made up a strawman and then whined about upside99 not responding to it.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:43 pmRoger2 has this issue about making stuff up in his/her/its tiny little brain and can’t figure out reality from fiction.
Not to mention a very poor grasp of grammar and spelling.
That damn home schooling showing through one more time.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:46 pmgummitch,
looks like roger2 has gone off to self-medicate again. And couldn’t have happened too soon.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:51 pmStratRat Says:
Bush and Cheney are both spoiled children. They will attack Iran - probably a week or so before having to leave ‘their’ White House.
No, I think it will be the ultimate “October Surprise”. They know that the only thing McCain has to run on is national security (HA!) so they’ll make sure we again see imminent danger in the Middle East.
Unless congress grows a pair in the meantime - and I mean the women, too!
PEACE
June 11th, 2008 at 7:57 pmRoger, trying reading!!!!
What part of that do you not understand?
And the reality of Iran as a threat is entirely relevant, and is actually the entire point.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:58 pmwell al malaki and the iranian guy look rather friendly to me - and has anybody in this farcical,oxygen-theiving bush administration bothered to ask al malaki what was discussed on his recent visit to iran? - and on what grounds would bush attack iran?
June 11th, 2008 at 8:00 pmThe Iraqi’s need to tell Bush to go to hell and wait until Obama takes office. They would be very stupid to make a deal with Bush. A recent poll showed that 70% (up from 60%) of the people in Iraq want us the hell out of their country. I can imagine what they will do if the Maliki government signs an agreement with Bush to allow us to own Iraq from now till kingdom come.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:09 pm#34 Gummitch says: Point 3. Iran has no practical interest in invading Iraq. Unlike you and Dubya, they remember how that worked out the last time and how many young Iranians (and Iraqis) died. As many as 1,000,000 Iranians alone died in that conflict.
Some readers might think you are saying Iran attacked Iraq. Of course, Iraq (aided by Reagan/GHWB) attacked Iran. Iran hasn’t invaded anyone in over 100 years.
Sometimes the US is so hypocritical that it is ridiculous.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:15 pmAccording to polls, 65% of Iraqis approve of attacks on US troops. It’s not surprising. Would you approve of attacks on an occupation army in the US?
June 11th, 2008 at 8:17 pmHey folks, just report this incarnation of R2 and stop trying to talk to it. It can’t debate, never has and never will.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:18 pmKeith Says:
Some readers might think you are saying Iran attacked Iraq. Of course, Iraq (aided by Reagan/GHWB) attacked Iran. Iran hasn’t invaded anyone in over 100 years.
The initial attack was definitely by the Iraqis, but Saddam had some reason to feel provoked, because the Iranians were encouraging Iraqi Shi’a to have their own Islamic Revolution and overthrow Saddam. And it’s also true that Iran was not content with driving the Iraqi invasion out, but proceeded in turn to invade Iraq. In general, though, I think it’s safe to say that Iraq was the aggressor.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:22 pmrogerse Says:
Your quotation proves my point. Thank you.
the Bush administration is seeking the “power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:24 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Hey folks, just report this incarnation of R2 and stop trying to talk to it. It can’t debate, never has and never will.
Well, yeah. I was entertaining myself.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:25 pmThat’s one thing the US can never allow is aggression against Iraq [snark].
June 11th, 2008 at 8:29 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Hey folks, just report this incarnation of R2 and stop trying to talk to it. It can’t debate, never has and never will.
Yea, me too. It is like driving by a car wreck; you really don’t want to look, but you can’t help yourself.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:38 pm> The initial attack was
> definitely by the Iraqis,
> but Saddam
> had some reason to feel provoked..
in other words, its “complicated”, which means its something that 90 percent of america will never be able to digest, so they’ll just not think about it..
June 11th, 2008 at 9:31 pmJinJin:
June 11th, 2008 at 9:45 pmYou must have seen The Mechanic. You’re done.
Bush is peddling as fast as possible to get this “agreement secured” BEFORE the UN Resolution expires in November . . . and those home-schooled folks, please take note that NATO and other alliances were negotiated AND APPROVED by Congress BEFORE they became binding . . .
No comparison to the Bush attempt to legally occupy Iraq and bind the future of America to the mast of his sinking ship of state . . .
June 11th, 2008 at 11:23 pmI’m beginning to think pelosi and reid are totally in the tank, pretending to be democrats. They suck long loud and often. I am disgusted.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:55 pmjin*2, is your mother watching you? Does she know what a little pain in the ass you’ve become? Would she be proud of you if she did know?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:01 amcrapcannon?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:22 amBlogwhoring…so sorry.
You’re gonna love this!
Why are YOU voting Republican?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:35 amPossibly the dumbest place to launch an attack on Iran would be the place where 60% of the population is on their side. And I’m sure most of the Sunni’s would jump in on the fight also. I know I’m only a Captain but this guy didn’t play much Risk as a kid.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:20 am