Bush Administration Negotiating Long-Term Iraq Occupation

Washington Independent:

This week the United States suffered its 4,000th military death in Iraq. That number will surely increase, as violence is now exploding across the country. Iraqi forces are clashing with the powerful Shiite militia of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. As if to offer denial in the face of disaster -- and commit the U.S. to losing many more soldiers and Marines -- the Bush administration has begun negotiations with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for years, even decades, after President George W. Bush leaves office.

The negotiation, set to conclude this summer, will establish the basis for a long-term U.S. occupation of Iraq. According to the Bush administration, the Iraqi government requested a bilateral agreement to replace the expiring U.N. mandate for the occupation, which offended Iraqi sovereignty. Asked if there was any irony in preparing a plan to keep thousands of foreign soldiers in Iraq in the name of Iraqi sovereignty, a National Security Council official, who requested anonymity, replied, "Sure, but we plan to negotiate that aspect" of the agreement.

(Matt Mahurin) Critics in the U.S. and in the Middle East are talking about the impending accords as the fulfillment of a hidden agenda. On Al Jazeera's "Inside Iraq" program, a recent report on the negotiations began: "This firm handshake between President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki may seal what had been predicted all along: that the U.S. has no intention of withdrawing from Iraq." Indeed, for years, the U.S. military in Iraq has quietly constructed massive bases that can garrison tens of thousands of troops indefinitely.

Read the whole story: Washington Independent

Comments

[MissingAmerica]

Negotiating to stay in Iraq long term? Has he forgotten that we have a say in this? He once commented that it would be easier to run this country if it were a dictatorship; it would appear that he has made it so!

[gnorrfa]

i had heard of this awhile ago but until now, no affirmation. shouldn't the msm be on this? it's a travesty.
i realize the msm has more important things to go after; obama slipped and almost fell, hillary used the wrong fork, etc, etc. i think this should be headline news. it's outrageous! almost nothing has been written about the u.s. embassy in baghdad - the largest on the planet. and on it goes.

[Mike169]

Finally - he's negotiating!

[guntotinganglion]

There is but one appropriate thing for our military, as a unit, to do. STAND DOWN. Refuse to obey illegal orders. They MUST honor their sworn oath to the Constitution, not the President! They swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States first and foremost, and the only way they can do that now is to STAND DOWN. Only they can end this nightmare.

I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD.

The order of the oath is everything. The first duty is to protect the Constitution from enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. When the President is one of those domestic enemies (aka a violator of the very Constitution HE is sworn to protect and defend), the latter oath to obey his orders is null and void.

Honor your oath...STAND DOWN!!!!

[guntotinganglion]

Contempt is this man's middle name, not Walker. This action, which is a treaty, is openly contemptuous of the Constitution, which requires Congressional advice and consent and approval, while being totally contemptuous of the Congress itself. And of course, the Republicans in Congress go along with the contempt, which is to say, they have contempt for the very offices they hold. And the Democrats aren't any better, in fact they're worse, in that at least the Republicans aren't hiding their criminal nature, they're giving this country and all of it's laws their middle fingers. The Democrats wrap themselves in the American flag, and then go along with whatever the minority party demands.

It's long since established that this is by far the worst President and executive branch in US history, but the Congress is worse. They've done NOTHING to even slow the messianic nightmare vision this insane man has for the world. He wants world war, and he wants millions dead. He's already past a million in Iraq, and I'd say it's very likely his actions will see tens of millions, if not more, die in the coming years and decades. The damage that has been done by this boneheaded hardline regime is beyond anything this country has seen before, and will take centuries to fix...if it's even possible to fix.

[fact finder]

But but Bush Inc. said it would only take 6 months. Lies on top of lies from all politicians.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Anyone that was paying attention knew this was coming anyway.
Maybe Nancy & Harry weren't paying attention.
They could have done *something* about it.

[JumpinJ]

To understand Middle Eastern philosophy and the marketplace, it's all about haggling. The second we walk away and actually start moving away, they'll jump and make a counterbargain. But since this administration can barely find Iraq on a map, why should they listen. In the words of Dick Cheney, "so"?

[vippy]

The end is January 09, so what do they know and don't want to tell us is my question?
With Hillary or McCain we shall be there forever.

[HippieChick]

"the Bush administration has begun negotiations with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for years, even decades, after President George W. Bush leaves office"

Looks like the neocons are taking full advantage of the media's complete focus on the democratic party dramas. The American president is quite literally a "Burning" Bush; the mainstream media remains complicit. Where are the "checks and balances" in our government when we really need them? Remember when Bush said he was against America being in the "nation building" business? And the republicans had the nerve to call Kerry a "flip-flopper!"

[GhostintheMachine]

And we are still in Germany and Japan and Kosovo etc etc

[LorettaSingbiel]

But from the Iraqi perspective, the idea of tens of thousands of U.S. troops standing idle while Iraq is under attack is unacceptable. Last month, Samir Sumaida'ie, the Iraqi ambassador to the U.S., said that as long as Iraq's security forces remain weak, "We also don't want to be the victim of attacks from our neighbors. During this time we believe the United States has a moral obligation to protect us."

WHY do "Iraq's security forces remain weak", when we've been supposedly training them for FIVE YEARS!?

Have the 18 benchmarks been met yet? (the REASON for the "successful surge"!)

OBAMA '08!
HOPE & CHANGE!

Stay safe, healthy and happy,
Love, Loretta

[Moshe]

"Bush Administration Negotiating Long-Term Iraq Occupation"

That should go over well in the streets . . .

[tafkaMinneapolisMike]

Since US-imposed Freedom will be in Iraq forever, our troops must be in Iraq forever. If we leave, there will be no Freedom and all the terrorists will be free to attack us here at home. Only losers/democrats want that.

www.primadogma.com

[JumpinJ]

Can we get Mike more Kool-aid, please?

[fact finder]

jj; Only if it is Jones Town Kool aid.

[SKonnery]

You didn't think they were going to give up the oil did you.