MaryinMontcoPA

Actually, they have.

In fact, the Iraqi Constitution requires the Parliament's approval for all international treaties. The Parliament demands a withdrawal timeline before giving approval for any continuation of the occupation.

The Parliament was ignored by Maliki and he re-upped the occupation for 2007. The Parliament protested in writing to the head of the UN and to the UN Security Council and were ignored. The Parliament passed additional legislation in 2007 to reinforce their constitution's requirement of their approval. Maliki ignored them again, and Kofi Annan's successor at the UN Ban Kee Moon claimed the Parliament's legislation was "non-binding."

This is big reason that the Iraqi people hate the Maliki administration so much, and demonstrated in many cities by the 10s of thousands when Maliki attacked Basra.

And our Cheney/Bush international criminals get their political lies about Iraq published again and again by the US mainstream media. Americans are really betrayed by our media. posted 04/07/2008 at 19:22:30

Before we invaded and occupied, there wasn't a war in Iraq. For sure, Saddam's Sunnis oppressed Shiites, and he did gas the Kurds with chem weapons we sold him to use on Iranians in the 7 Year War. But on the whole, there was no war there.

On the other hand, there WAS drinkable water, electricity, enough food, employment for women, the best health care system and universities in the Middle East, freedom for women and men to wear western clothes, trash pickup, boutiques, cafes, multi-ethnic neighborhoods and intermarriage all over Baghdad... and their own indigenous movement to overthrow Saddam (who did not want our "help").

If we pulled out, Maliki and his militia (in Iraqi uniforms) would be voted out or overthrown by Sadr and his militia and supporters. Sadr supports Iraq as one country, with NO foreign occupiers -- just like the multi-sect majority in the *elected* Parliament, and the majority of Iraqis who voted them into office. Maliki can't last without the occupation and is happy to provide the American government and war profiteers a "soft partition" of Iraq.

Yeah, Sadr is no saint. But he *is* the one who held a cease fire for 6 months until Maliki attacked his militia and supporters in Basra (instead of the piecemeal attacks of the prior months). And he was the one who called the cease fire this time, too.

The U.S. is backing the loser. Again. Brutally. posted 04/07/2008 at 19:13:31

Which ones? Hope they start a trend. posted 04/07/2008 at 11:52:46

Note that Andrew said they should not LEAVE the United States...

He's saying that OTHER COUNTRIES will arrest and try them for war crimes. No American President -- even the megalomaniac Cheney/Bush -- can pardon THAT.

If our "representatives" don't do it first -- impeach before January 20, or indict after January 20 -- it is actually possible that the international community SOMEplace will do it in spite of such moral bankruptcy in America.

It would be great if there were that much justice on this planet.

By the way, the professional epidemiologists who published in Britain's The Lancet that easily 600,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in our war and occupation, predominantly by US air strikes. And that was a few years ago! It could easily be 1 million by now, out of an Iraqi population that used to number 25 million. 1 in 25 Iraqi's killed. If the equivalent percent of some 250 million Americans were killed, we would have suffered 10,000,000 killed Americans. That's more than THREE THOUSAND times our 9/11 losses. posted 04/07/2008 at 11:40:23

Blackwater and its fellow mercenaries have closer to 150,000 mercs in Iraq. As many or more than US troops for much of this invasion and occupation of a country that did nothing to us.

Their business plan is for growth providing their services in THIS country. posted 04/04/2008 at 23:21:45

I believe Obama's campaign even cleared the national ad buy with the DNC, since they couldn't remove FL from the ad buy and just keep the other states.

It was okayed. posted 04/04/2008 at 23:51:51

The 50-state strategy is working...BIG TIME.

So is the VoteBuilder nationwide organizing database. It's brilliant. We used it last year to elect Dems in a county totally controlled by Rethugs since the civil war.

It's not Dean's role to dictate a "solution" to the Mi and FL problem. The rules were democratically decided by the whole national committee, and agreed to by all the state parties and all the candidates. He's absolutely following a democratic procedure in his approach.

In PA -- like most of the other states -- Obama's campaign has just about closed the double-digit gap in the polls. In MI and FL, he didn't get a chance to balance out Hill's name recognition with competitive campaigning. So it wasn't a race. So Hillary didn't "win." MI and FL couldn't figure out a way to pull off a re-do that followed the rules, so there doesn't appear to be any way to resolve the situation before the primaries are done.

Dean has been doing a great job of consistently refusing to be pushed around. As chairman, he can't take sides. Hill's supporters won't be able to pull a fast one with the name recognition race in MI and FL. posted 04/04/2008 at 23:49:16

If they're all at once, only rich people could afford to run. We already have way too much of that. posted 04/04/2008 at 23:35:52

Not.

Those 20 people bragged about having donated $24 million over TEN years to *MANY* *CONGRESSIONAL* Democratic candidates -- NOT to *presidential* candidates in *one* year. That'd be about $120,000 on the average per donor per year, to multiple Congressional candidates. ...that's noticeable money.

But if the Dems get smart, and give small donors like Obama's a damned good reason to donate, Obama's 2 million donors could replace these 20 by donating six cents apiece!

In the end, those pesky facts lean toward democracy, if our DC Dems would only wake up and smell the coffee! posted 03/30/2008 at 09:57:18

That works great, as long as you only want wealthy candidates to run -- or candidates who can get funding fast from a very few wealthy donors.

But if you want to have any candidates interested in representing ordinary Americans, you have to start with a less expensive arena. Hence smaller states starting out (um, IA and NH). This year we got a bonus with NC and NV adding their demographics into the early part of the process for a more broadly representative thinning of the candidates.

Bottom line, this extended race is energizing more Democrats in more states than any race in living memory. It actually makes a difference if we participate! That's one of the most brilliant things about the proportional splitting of the state delegates -- building voter power in more and more states! Go, democracy! posted 03/30/2008 at 00:43:27

Thanks!

Been working on trying to get our country back since 2003... Obama's approach is looking good for our dear US of A.

Hope it works this time. If not, we build on it for next time. posted 03/30/2008 at 00:29:04

The way I figure, the more states Hillary runs in, the more states end up with the Obama campaign's signature on-the-ground Democratic citizen volunteer organizations. If that's done right, these bottom-up state organizations will grow beyond the primary -- giving We The People not only the means to win the election for ordinary Americans, but also the political strength to lean heavily on the US legislature and new president to start representing OUR interests, rather than just the top one percent's!

With 2 million donors and counting, averaging $106 each, there's lots of room for more small donor power. This is real campaign finance reform, defeating the economic power of the rich with the collective economic power of ordinary Americans.

The candidates of the Big Donors are already amazed at what We The People can do when there's a leader like Obama building organization that empowers American citizens. What a concept! posted 03/30/2008 at 00:15:39

Just being born female is not enough to qualify to be *my* president. posted 03/28/2008 at 10:21:38

Jon, please read "Five Things You Need to Know to Understand the Latest Violence in Iraq."
By Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar, AlterNet. Posted March 27, 2008.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/80580?page=entire

You're right about the Bush/Cheney tactical refusal to publicly define "success".

I believe you're wrong that Muqtada Al Sadr has to be convinced to lay down arms...

After all, it was Al Sadr who held a 6-month cease fire, and who told his supporters to use non-violent strikes and civil disobedience to oppose this latest attack on his militia. Malawi, backed by the U.S. military and mercenaries, is not attacking *all* militants nor all militias -- only the Sadrists.

The Sadrists, the majority of the elected Parliament, and the majority of Iraqi citizens are Nationalists who want the occupation to end and want to keep Iraq unified.

Maliki -- who was appointed, not elected, and who cannot stay in power without occupation forces supporting him -- is a separatist who wants Iraq divided up.

Now -- shortly after Darth Cheney made his visit to the middle east -- Maliki is trying to kill off his nationalist opposition before Iraqi elections conveniently scheduled 1 month before our US presidential elections. "Success" is imposing a Columbian-style dictatorship with permanent US bases, against the will of the majority of Iraqis.

Iraqis, like humans everywhere, are resisting foreign occupiers attempting to seize their country and steal their resources. posted 03/29/2008 at 13:15:06