In a curious move, the Bush Administration is now refusing a demand from the duly elected Iraqi government for a date of withdrawal. It appears that we are not done rescuing the Iraqis — no matter what the Iraqis may think. So it appears that a continued open-ended occupation now opposed by a majority of voters, a majority in Congress, and a majority of Iraqis will continue until the White House is satisfied. It appears that all that business about the freely elected government was simply aspirational.
State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos issued the rejection: “The US government and the government of Iraq are in agreement that we, the US government, we want to withdraw, we will withdraw. However, that decision will be conditions-based.”
One condition is apparently not the will of the Iraqi people or its government. While the Bush Administration insists that it is not an “occupying power,” this decision would confirms that status. If the Iraqi government cannot demand our departure by a date certain, it would seem that we remain in the role of an occupying power.
On Tuesday, Iraq insisted that it will not consent to any security part with the United States without a date for the pullout of U.S. troops.
For the full story, click here.
Yawn, Dictator Bush as GOT to go. The sooner we get that MORON out of office the bettter off we will all be!
JT
http://www.FireMe.To/udi
Mespo,
Great quote, but this Bush regime does not know how to stop digging those holes that Molly Ivins wrote about.
Butters,
If the country we are occupying wants us out, we have to get out. Thumbing our nose at the sovreignity of the very government that Bush claims is working, would be admitting that the mistake of Iraq was really for oil and other business interests. And the hole would just keep on getting deeper. George W. wouldn’t admit to the mistake of a generation, would he?
Communists
Mespo, dude. Vilify the administration and its Iraq war folly all you want. I agree. From censoring inconvenient climate change findings to trampling on basic civil liberties to the cronyism, this administration casts a dark pall on the institution of the presidency.
But Iraq ain’t a hole anymore. There’s been so much progress over there that even Senator Obama grudgingly came around. And remember, we have our interests too. If the Iraqis’ demands are a serious impediment to further progress, let them jump in the lake.
Another dig at Bush to make you guys happy: If you’re belligerent and have no qualms with using force to achieve your foreign policy goals, at least do it properly. Here there was inept military planning. This just emasculates the guy.
Butters/ty:
I guess any one of us could give you a point by point analysis as to why destroying the military and bankrupting the Country is not worth doing over this war of choice and hubris, but maybe the late, great Molly Ivins can better address your arguments in her own pithy and direct way:
“The First Rule of Holes…
… If You Are in One, Stop Digging.”
Sue Ann:
“Excuse me while I chuckle….’peace’ has never been an end result of war. Not once.”
***************
I have no idea how you define “peace” but most define it as the general absence of war. If you accept that definition, “J” is undeniably correct when he writes that the defeat of Hitler brought about the peace in Western Europe that continues today. Further, it is historical fact that Octavian’s victory in the Roman Civil War in 31 BCE ushered in Pax Romana which was a period of peace within the Empire that lasted until about 180 CE. In 1865, Lee’s surrender at Appomattox certainly ended most hostilities in our Civil War, and there was reconciliation between the regions. Fat Man and Little Boy quelled the state of war with Japan and that has led to an alliance with our former enemy. That’s just four counterexamples without much research to disprove your assertion. It is just inaccurate to say that peace has “never been the end result of war,” and in fact, while war may not a necessary predecessor to peace, history shows its has preceded it time and time again. Of course, if you define peace as a state of absolute tranquility where everyone loves everyone and the sun shines and the birds sing, I think you seek “what never was and never will be.” (to paraphrase Jefferson)
O’man, I don’t get this post. And I’m not sure how you smart people, some of whom are lawyers, don’t raise a peep when he makes such ill-thought statements. We went into Iraq for our own interests and we certainly won’t leave it ill-equipped to self-govern until we’re sure it can. Fuck the Iraqis. We’ve wasted more than enough resources on this war to see the entire project go up in smoke. Why reverse the progress we’ve made and risk destabilizing the country?
Oh and second argument: A decision to withdraw by a certain date affects more than the Iraqi’s territorial integrity. It puts our resolve in question. We’d be removing OUR own troops and inevitably signaling to the hostile forces that be that we had enough. This concerns more than just the Iraqis.
Please don’t respond to my post unless you address my arguments directly. Ty.
“plus” means different then “minus”.
Kind of reminds me of the caveman that hit the woman over the head and dragged her by the hair to his cave, stating that they now were united.
Again, basic Principals. A “Union” is the sum of all parts. What “war” does, is fight over which parts are going to be negated.
It brought domination and subjugation. Negating another’s will is not the same as willing agreement. When will we EVER get it through our heads that peace is a RESPONSE of genuinely PEACEFUL people? Instead of judgmental and condemning self righteous ones, modeled after a religious idol lacking in emotional coping skills.
WW II did bring peace to western europe.
Sue Anne: You’re so right!But There not really interested in the pie so much as they are to selling you the ingredients in the recipe. As nasty as an oil pie is.they are pigheadedly determined to have one come out no matter what the cost! I have not heard a single word on Iraq’s statement from any network but msnbc. Even though Bush said he’d withdraw if the Iraqi’s asked. That scares me more than burning the pie!
Ken in Reno
Excuse me while I chuckle….’peace’ has never been an end result of war. Not once. Ever. We’ve just been plain ignorant and dumb, using our ends to justify our means, when in REALITY, it is the means we use that dictate the end result. According the the Principal of cause and effect, that is.
For example, if I mix up all the ingredients for a chocolate cake and put it into the oven to bake, I’m not going to pull out a cherry pie. No matter how much I want to. If I wanted a cherry pie, then I needed to use the proper ingredients.
Amen indeed.
The prank was boring, although the 2% reference was actually a compliment – it seems that joke went awry because it wasn’t very interesting or clever.
Bartlebee,
Amen brother.
Oh, and Martha is it? Hopefully not as in Stewart…
Instead of attacking people who merely excercise their constitutional rights for peaceful protest of their own govt (you do believe in the Constitution, right?) you might want to pin some of the blame for our loss in Viet Nam, to the Presidents who started it, continued it and refused to give up until they knew it was hopeless.
The Iraqi government should complain to the UN
and the International Court at Hague.
If it does not do so, it will be deemed as an accomplice to the crimes perpetrated there daily.
They can throw in a bagful of items:
Illegal occupation by US and Halliberton et al.
Stealing Iraqi oil.
Contaminating Iraqi soil (Depleted Uranium.
Indiscriminate killing and bombing of civilians.
Torture of prisoners.
and on and on….