Comments (95)

Steve5117 wrote on November 26, 2007 11:29 AM:

Every minute we allow this idiot to stay in office is harmful to our health and wellfair.

Is there anything to stop the next administration from repudiating this idiot's actions and recinding any ill-thought-out agreements?

RJ wrote on November 26, 2007 11:32 AM:

So, one has to wonder if Pelosi will put impeachment back on the table anytime soon.

stephennnn wrote on November 26, 2007 11:34 AM:

Sad day for America. Permanent occupation!!! American troops have been dying at an average of over two per day in Iraq for the past five years..... Would someone pencil this out for me on the basis of 50 or a 100 years.

Phoenix Woman wrote on November 26, 2007 11:42 AM:

That's nice. The US thought it would stay in Vietnam forever, too. Went and built billion-dollar state-of-the-art sub facilities in Cam Ranh Bay in the early 1960s. The Soviets were using them by the late 1970s.

Moqtada al-Sadr will be drinking coffee at the Balad base Starbucks within the next five years. He's already consolidating power in the south, thanks to the Brits pulling out of Basra (which has had a 90% drop in violence in the nearly-three-months since).

Anonymous wrote on November 26, 2007 11:45 AM:

"Nobody could have predicted the permanent occupation of Iraq."

foggylady wrote on November 26, 2007 11:47 AM:

Quick, everyone act surprised.

sheesh....

TMP & Muck folks in have been talking about this for the last couple years now. Exactly who will in gov't will be surprised?

And who will be surprised if the elections are not held?

penalcolony wrote on November 26, 2007 11:47 AM:

Surely this can't be done with a unilateral wave of the royal scepter. A treaty (and, therefore, Congress) will have to be part of the process, yes?

rita wrote on November 26, 2007 11:50 AM:

And the negotiated, bilateral arrangement for protection against external enemies, i.e. Iran, will provide a "legal" justification for war against Iran when the U.S. provides "evidence" of Iran's attacks against Iraq's government.

Steve5117 wrote on November 26, 2007 11:52 AM:

The bases are wired to American electrical standards and have American restaurants and stores...

Now that would serve them Iraqis well if all we leave behind is a corporate presence! Before you know it there will be lines outside of Best Buy and Circuit City waiting for the after-holy-day sales.

dm wrote on November 26, 2007 11:53 AM:

How can we ask the men and women of the armed forces to fight and die in a permanent war that is admittedly premised solely on the advancement of financial and imperial interests? Are we really ordering these young people to kill and die to protect the Iraqi Government from accountability to its own people in order to secure more oil wealth and permanent bases from which to attack foreign nations? Honestly, how can the President look servicemen (and women) and their spouses in the eyes and ask them to continue to sacrifice for this? How could this indefinite war possibly be justified?

I hope this announcement finally sparks outrage from those members of the US public who have been patiently waiting "six more months" for the last four years. There is no more "six more months"; the war is now indefinite by the Administration's own admission.

The only decisive factor for me in the next election is who will withdraw our military forces from Iraq. That seems to narrow the choices to Paul or Kucinich.

Tintin wrote on November 26, 2007 11:54 AM:

Some friends are moving back to Europe. Must be nice to live in a country not run by mass murdering maniacs.
.

Shard wrote on November 26, 2007 11:54 AM:

I believe Karl Rove is available to make sure all future Iraqi elections turn out properly.

hoppy wrote on November 26, 2007 11:54 AM:

Just as Bush repudiated international treaties, both by declaration and by action, the next president can do the same in regards to Iraq. If President Obama wants the US presence in Iraq to end, he can order it ended.

No president or Congress can tie the hands of a future president or Congress. I'm quite sure that Bush will do everything his handlers can think of to ensure that all of that beautiful oil in Iraq brings money into the bank accounts of wealthy Americans for the next 100 years. But, the best laid plans of mice and men.......

oldtree wrote on November 26, 2007 12:02 PM:

Isn't it about time congress acts to remove the traitor and his co conspirators?

Douglas Watts wrote on November 26, 2007 12:04 PM:

The Democratic candidates will all strongly support this.

14 mos to go wrote on November 26, 2007 12:07 PM:

2003:
UNDER SECRETARY GROSSMAN: First of all let me thank you for the opportunity to be on your program tonight, and as in your introduction I want to make sure that your viewers recognize that the United States would like to see Iraq disarm peacefully as well. To your question, I did have the good fortune to testify in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this week. We talked about the future of Iraq, and no, this time frame that's been out there was a specific answer to a specific question. What we said to senators was, that we, the United States, would be in Iraq as long as it took, but not one day longer, to achieve our objectives.

Guess it is gonna take forever to achieve our objectives.

djcrow22 wrote on November 26, 2007 12:13 PM:

Why is anyone surprised? The 800 lb. gorilla is and always has been the oil. Vietnam didn't have any oil. The Bush/Cheney/Exxon-Mobil/Chevron/Shell/Corporate Military Industrial Complex, complete with secret energy meetings on day one of this criminal administration, has achieved their #1 goal. And the reason the democrats have completely failed to remove troops from Iraq? They know it was always about the oil and that the U.S. will never leave Iraq without the oil. Oil explains why Feinstein and Pelosi have refused to impeach and failed to bring home troops. Troops are necessary when you invade a sovereign country with the sole intention of stealing their oil. This is what fascism wrapped in a flag looks like. Bowing to corporate desires and completely ignoring the will of the people, dressing up naked aggression as "freedom and democracy" while slaughtering every subhuman brown skinned human being standing in the way. What a country,eh?

Alguien wrote on November 26, 2007 12:13 PM:

dm wrote on November 26, 2007 11:53 AM:
"How can we ask the men and women of the armed forces to fight and die in a permanent war that is admittedly premised solely on the advancement of financial and imperial interests? Are we really ordering these young people to kill and die to protect the Iraqi Government from accountability to its own people in order to secure more oil wealth and permanent bases from which to attack foreign nations? Honestly, how can the President look servicemen (and women) and their spouses in the eyes and ask them to continue to sacrifice for this? How could this indefinite war possibly be justified?"

Here's your answer, directly from one of Bush's most influential ideologues:

“Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” - Henry Kissinger [From the book, “Kiss the Boys Goodbye: How the United States Betrayed Its Own POW’s in Vietnam”]

Any more questions?

mike wrote on November 26, 2007 12:17 PM:

You can't impeach Bush over the war.

Why? Because in '02 Congress authorized the f--ing war and in '04 Bush was re-elected (which was in fact a referendum on the war, it certainly wasn't a referendum to privatize social security).

Impeaching Bush over the war really would be 'criminalizing politics.'

If you want him impeached (and I do), it would have to be over illegal and warrant-less wiretapping (or some other egregious and deliberate lawbreaking).

RB-Chicago wrote on November 26, 2007 12:22 PM:

WAR..WAR...WAR...MONEY.....WAR....WAR...

WHAT MORONS......

Screw impeachment..just put him in coach for the Hague and be done with it...a small war crimes tribunal will do...

Doc Rock wrote on November 26, 2007 12:24 PM:

Make that contingent Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Perle, Bolton, Nordquist, Novak, and a few other wingnuts and I'd support it.

whidbeygrl wrote on November 26, 2007 12:24 PM:

As djcrow22 wrote on November 26, 2007 12:13 PM...

Amen to that.
The true is always just that simple and clear.
Anything else is just BS.

but then , we knew that, didn't we?

TheraP wrote on November 26, 2007 12:28 PM:

Iraq.... site of the fabled Garden of Eden.

Going back to Eden/the womb. And gonna stay there. (bush is truly delusional!)

We're fighting for Eden. That's what these troops are there for. Gotta rid that garden of all the snakes. So they don't come and bite us here.

When can we return to Sanity?

JohnW1141 wrote on November 26, 2007 12:31 PM:

"Impeachment is off the table."

Nancy

EH wrote on November 26, 2007 12:31 PM:

Eh, this still requires funding from Congress.

David Eoll wrote on November 26, 2007 12:33 PM:

Is there anything to stop the next administration from repudiating this idiot's actions and recinding any ill-thought-out agreements?

Considering that Junior thought nothing of repudiating long-standing and very well thought out agreements like the ABM Treaty of 1972 (signed by Nixon, btw), I would not feel restrained at all from rolling back any and all initiatives he hatched during his little eight-year bender.

But, of course the Village Elders will probably have switched back out of IOKIYAR mode by then and will start shrieking like harpies. F*** 'em.

jawbone wrote on November 26, 2007 12:35 PM:

Well, "enduring bases" for and "enduring relationship."

Brought to you by BushBoy and the NeoCons.

Anonymous wrote on November 26, 2007 12:37 PM:

Bush will probably present the treaty to the Senate close to the presidential election--and campaign for it on the basis of national security and if the Dems don't ratify it everyone in the Homeland will die from terrists.

It's the Fear, baby.

neptune1 wrote on November 26, 2007 12:39 PM:

djcrow22 has it exactly right. As long as oil is the basic fuel for the commerce of this country, multi-national corporations and the US military will be mucking around in the Middle East. And more war will surely follow, due in large part to those troublesome details of ownership and soveriegnty...

rin foil wrote on November 26, 2007 12:40 PM:

This smells like a 10 billion dollar bribe for Nouri al-Maliki.

Kirk wrote on November 26, 2007 12:46 PM:

Would not the Congress of the U.S. have to ratify any such agreement. It is just a mutual understanding unless and until such ratification.

Or does this President get to make unilateral foreign policy?

Me_again wrote on November 26, 2007 12:50 PM:

And here is betting that Bill and Hillary Clinton are right in lock-step with this decision from Bush administration.

It's all about our vital national interest thing, you know, the oil.

ezsmirkzz wrote on November 26, 2007 12:56 PM:

The presidential candidates won't say squat about this agreement as it lets them off the hook. We can look forward to a similar agreement coming out of Annapolis too.

While it is easy to underestimate Bush's intelligence, his vanity shouldn't be. The appearance of having done something that makes him look good is enough for him.

The current push is repainting the walls and letting the next owner find out about the termites later. Meanwhile fearless leader walks away and the next Prez will be stuck holding the bag when the turd falls out on the porch just as the homeowner turns on the porchlight.

PrahaPartizan wrote on November 26, 2007 1:00 PM:

Kirk, precisely. Any such agreement constitutes a treaty, which would require the advice and consent of the Senate. I don't believe that Bush can make a recess appointment for a Senate confirmation, at least not yet.

Jaligard wrote on November 26, 2007 1:03 PM:

It's gotta' go through the Senate to be binding.

It'll be one more chance for the Democrats to stand firm or to capitulate.

Ferruge wrote on November 26, 2007 1:10 PM:

The Senate will undoubtedly approve - all the Repubs will be in lockstep behind it, and 12-15 Democrats will snake and slither along, snubbing their nose at Reid's half-assed attempts to corral them in. Mission accomplished - way to go Democrats!

Fucking assholes.

davcbr wrote on November 26, 2007 1:15 PM:

Uhm,
What happens if there is no approval from the UN for an extension?
Just want to know.
dc

v. popvli wrote on November 26, 2007 1:35 PM:

davcbr,

good question. the answer is: Nothing. the UN doesn't have any power to kick us out of iraq. the US has veto power in the UN, so anything the UN tries to pass that Bush doesn't like can be vetoed. all we really need is the "sovereign" government of iraq to give us permission/request our presence. the president has to be willing to send teh troops (which he obviously is). also, congress has to keep voting to fund those operations. we'll be there as long as all three of those conditions continue.

ProDem wrote on November 26, 2007 1:43 PM:

Hey Democrats!! Don't blame that sick f**k Bush!! The American People in 2004 gave this POS 4 more years!! So BLAME them...not BUSH!!

sheerahkahn wrote on November 26, 2007 1:50 PM:

This only highlights in indelible highlighter how truly pathetic the Democratic party has become...Bush has done everything but outright voiced a dare in the press to impeach him.
What will it take for the Democrats to finally impeach Bush and Cheney?
What else is there left for Bush and Cheney to do that would finally man-up the Democrats to grow a pair and do their constitutional duty?

Good G-d, either the Republicans, the freaking political minority for christsakes, are truly the Grand-Masters of the Country and of our Government, or the Democrats want all those powers that the Republicans have garnered for themselves.
Jesus Christ, either way we the People are so screwed!

Taxpayer wrote on November 26, 2007 1:51 PM:

Once again Bush's actions lay lie to his words. And again not much will be done to stop him.

Mauro wrote on November 26, 2007 1:54 PM:

American troops are dying. They're important. Everyone supports American troops. At least no Iraqis are dying...

It's amazing how we justify our getting out of Iraq in completely selfish terms -- we're wasting American lives, and so on. It feels like this is what we feed the conservatives to get them to our side (like mocking gay Republicans when we clearly are not bigots ourselves), and we've grown to believe it ourselves. When we talk about Iraqis dying, it's to use them as bad news ammo against Republicans, to show how badly they screwed up. Somehow the American people always have to come first. This is a perversion of the Progressive values of fairness and responsibility...

I'm not saying that we should stay in Iraq, but that a handful of volunteers (4000 is a handful compared to the number of Iraqi casualties; let's not lose our sense of perspective) are dying to protect a brutalized people should not be the reason that we need to leave. We're stuck policing someone else's civil war, yeah, but unpleasant as that may be, the real crime is that the rest of the world isn't helping and that the US isn't policing other civil wars (Darfur, anyone?). Please, when we argue about whether the US's armed forces should stay in Iraq or not, don't use this rampant American exceptionalism. There are many better arguments for leaving than that.

Jack Hughes wrote on November 26, 2007 1:59 PM:

This is a strategy by the neocons to maneuver the Dems into voting against this "Iraq security treaty" in an election year.

To counter this, the Dems should demand that any such treaty be first approved by a popular vote by a majority of the Iraqi people.

Seth H. wrote on November 26, 2007 2:00 PM:

To briefly be a devil's advocate, I do feel the need to point out that it's not unheard of to permanently position troops somewhere after a war there. Matter of fact, one might even call it commonplace. We have troops in Germany, Japan, and Korea, just to name a few examples.

On the other hand, this particular war didn't have any near the virtue of any of those wars, not to mention the fact that all of the aforementioned countries (Japan excepted) welcomed us with open arms. Permanently placing troops in an area that will, as a direct result, be permanently malevolent toward them is a little different.

scott wrote on November 26, 2007 2:03 PM:

ezsmirkzz wrote: "The presidential candidates won't say squat about this agreement as it lets them off the hook."

You can bet Ron Paul will have something to say about it. And you can bet when he is our next president he will wipe this miserable declaration from the record books.

danger wrote on November 26, 2007 2:07 PM:

Better find myself a nice beachside bodega in Australia or the Carribbean to work at for the next 30 years...

Xenos wrote on November 26, 2007 2:14 PM:

Any Democratic candidates opposed to this? Anyone?

What a catastrophe in the making. If this goes through, I can see my kids getting drafted for this folly in a few years.

jvill wrote on November 26, 2007 2:16 PM:

NOW can we stop pretending this has anything with some ridiculous "freedom agenda," and everything to do with oil and putting money in already deep pockets while the rest of us choke on the carbon monoxide?

Dr WU-the last of the big time thinkers wrote on November 26, 2007 2:17 PM:

For the 100th time-- George Bush makes his own reality. We're in Iraq, we're staying, screw the Sunnis and Shiites. We leave when the oil runs dry.

Rudy, Obama, Hillary, Mitt etc. have already signed onto the plan.

You and I, dear reader, have not sighed on but is it possible to change what Bush has wrought?

Enoch Root wrote on November 26, 2007 2:17 PM:

Democrats.

Want.

This.

How many times must it be said?

Democrats.

Want.

To.

Occupy.

Iraq.

Too.

Get it? No? Let's try again:

The US.

Will.

Always.

Be.

In.

Iraq.

Getting through yet?

scuseme wrote on November 26, 2007 2:32 PM:

So Cheney's puppet government agrees with Cheney. What a surprise. Cheney will write the oil law too before he leaves office.

r€nato wrote on November 26, 2007 2:55 PM:

There are many reasons why we invaded Iraq - as Wolfowitz alluded to in his Vanity Fair interview in 2003 - but, IMHO, chief among them was the oil.

More specifically, to give the US a seat at the OPEC table. Iraq will be the US proxy vote at OPEC.

With peak oil near (or already upon us), having influence in OPEC will give the US muscle in securing oil (and, secondarily, oil profits) for our markets, something China is doing aggressively.

With a seat at the OPEC table through our Iraqi proxy, the US can have a say in oil prices and production. It can also work to prevent the pricing of oil in euros, which would be a large step towards either the dollar losing its status as a reserve currency, or at least having to share that status with the euro.

(of course, we wouldn't have to worry so much about that if the dollar were still a strong currency, thank you very much Mr. Bush)

Losing reserve currency status would be a tremendous blow to our economy.

No president is going to be able to reverse this. Not even Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, in the extremely unlikely event that one of them should be elected president. Congress, the Pentagon and all the other power centers of DC would oppose it and, if need be, they'd arrange for the impeachment of such a president.

There are simply too many business, financial and political interests staked upon the US playing a greater role in ME oil politics. No president - and no president's party - wants to preside over the economic calamity which might ensue if we were to pull out of Iraq and thereby lose our influence with our Iraqi proxy.

This all goes back to our addiction to oil. Oil runs our economy and in order to remain a superpower - in order to prop up what increasingly looks like a house of cards - the US is using its military muscle to secure a dwindling resource.

This, ultimately, is the price we pay for our extravagant and wasteful lifestyle. People really are dying so that Billy Joe Bob can have his Hummer.

PHB wrote on November 26, 2007 2:55 PM:

Bush has spent his entire President demonstrating that there are no constraints on the office whatsoever. His own attempts to bind his successors will have far less force than the ABM treaty that Bush dismissed unilateraly.

The only effect of this agreement is that it is going to make it much harder for the GOP candidates to dodge the fact that obtaining permanent military bases was the entire purpose of the invasion.

The incomming President knows that they have a choice, either they retreat from Iraq immediately and blame the disaster on Bush or they stay and let it become their own personal disaster as Nixon did in Vietnam.

Support for the Iraq war amongst the establishment is much weaker than support for Vietnam was in 68 or 72. Without the Presidency pushing for the war there is no base of support. In February 2009 the only two vocal war supporters left will be a discredited ex-President and Joe Lieberman. Thats not enough to keep up momentum.

Whoever becomes President is going to ask the Pentagon to give them options for Iraq. Simply playing out the clock for the next four years is not going to be an attractive option. That leaves active engagement in the political process or more or less immediate withdrawal.

r€nato wrote on November 26, 2007 2:59 PM:

"You and I, dear reader, have not sighed on but is it possible to change what Bush has wrought?"

No. It is not, short of a revolution. I mean a real, honest-to-god revolution.

Way too many interests are staked upon maintaining the flow of oil. Ultimately, our way of life is too. I sure don't want to live through a second Great Depression, but due to the US' inability to diversify its energy resources away from oil, this is the choice we have, at least in the short to medium term:

Economic disaster, or continue the occupation of Iraq.

Gus wrote on November 26, 2007 3:02 PM:

A coupla folks upthread said they expected the Dem pres candidates to support this. I hope that was only pessimism and not based on anything that's been reported?

I'd be stunned if any of the Demos supported this, or more precisey any other than Clinton.

Lou wrote on November 26, 2007 3:07 PM:

Actually, Bush meant--"We seek to rob your country blind, and plunder and rape what's left". Welcome to Bush democracy, watch out other countries, or we'll bring it to you too!!

D-BB wrote on November 26, 2007 3:12 PM:

Shit, first Canada, now iraq. What's next?

Persona non grata wrote on November 26, 2007 3:18 PM:

" What will the presidential candidates say about this?"

Nothing.

disgusted wrote on November 26, 2007 3:28 PM:

Isn't it wonderful how the NEOCON, Racist, Fascist, AntiAmerican Republicans justify their hate filled lives. Here is a Supreme Court appointed Ballot box fixed, Brain dead ANTI AMERICAN president commiting our Country to further Military commiyments Something this SPINELESS COWARD and his HATE MONGERING VP and staff could not due.
I would like to point out that all the people that sup[port this Talking Monkey and his policies are all NON MILITARY connected nor DID any of the COWARDS on the right ever serve in the Military nor do they have any of their family members involved in the military.

But what can one say when RNC stands for Racist Nazis Committee, and the Death of America and its Constitution. Remember to say you are Republican is to say you are ANTI AMERICAN and a COWARD.

croatoan wrote on November 26, 2007 3:37 PM:

The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq defines victory as "an Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country." [emphasis added] Is this an admission our strategy has failed?

Wong of Steel wrote on November 26, 2007 4:02 PM:

First post - you call Bush a moron and you spell 'welfare' as 'wellfair.' ???

goethe wrote on November 26, 2007 4:11 PM:

So now we'll add this special relationship to the one we already have with Israel, and the Cheney-neocon goals are sewed up: constant middle east turmoil to ensure Israeli "security" plus a lock on the oil. Can we afford $2 billion a year for Iraq in perpetuity in addition to what we already give Israel? I guess so--it just brings more business to the military-industrial giants who are profiting off this misery.

corvid wrote on November 26, 2007 4:27 PM:

Just fyi: Has anyone noticed that last week the Red Cross reported that there were at least 375,000 missing Iraqis? That's not including the many thousands known to have been killed in the war.
.
Lends credence to that Johns Hopkins survey that estimated 650,000 dead in the war, the survey that everyone dismissed.

Steve5117 wrote on November 26, 2007 4:53 PM:

Wong - that's what happens with Bush on my mind. Fortunately when I speak to children they learn from my example. I admit to having become bad at spelling because of spellcheckers. I will never do the texting shorthand because I'm too old to learn that language.

cr wrote on November 26, 2007 5:12 PM:

let me be the first to welcome the 51st state.

Anonymous wrote on November 26, 2007 5:38 PM:

OPEC is on the verge of moving from dollars to Euros. With the U.S. dollar already on a bobsled ride downhill, this change can wipe out in the immediate future any strategies the U.S. may envision as to keeping control over oil supplies, futures and distribution. Coupled with the balance of payment deficit, a recession on the horizon and loss of prestige and cooperation abroad, the U.S. may have drawn the long end of the wishbone. History is written by the winners and there is no guarantee in stone that the American empire will just bumble along indefinitely like the drunken giant it has been for decades.

POLDEVIA wrote on November 26, 2007 5:39 PM:

I thought the UK was the 51st state.

TheraP wrote on November 26, 2007 6:07 PM:

corvid:

The study published at the Lancet was done by a method of surveying neighborhoods and checking death certificates. Then extrapolating to the population at large. It was very well done from a methodological point of view and thus we can trust those numbers as dead.

Your numbers of missing, therefore, must be added to the other number, and are not included within it!

Anonymous wrote on November 26, 2007 6:09 PM:

Someone wrote, "Fourteen months to go."

After all these years acquiring and then exercising the institutional power of the US, why do you think they will voluntarily leave power?

Why?

An honest succession will open them to all sorts of criminal prosecutions. They will lose their ability to influence events to suit themselves and their patrons. They will find all their "work" destroyed.

Why would they allow that?

slb wrote on November 26, 2007 6:12 PM:

So I guess I can assume that the "We will stand down as they stand up" promise is now inoperative, huh?

v. popvli wrote on November 26, 2007 6:13 PM:

our 51st state is saudi israelia

bird tlossum wrote on November 26, 2007 7:12 PM:

Don't be TOO hard on the Democrats.
After all, they have families. Would you want your loved ones to get an ANTHRAX LETTER, or an accidental tire blowout...?...or brain eating bacteria?...or cancer?...or get dusted with nuclear waste in a sushi bar?...for really standing up to these gorillas?

I threw away the tin-foil hat and Godwin's law a long time ago.

JD wrote on November 26, 2007 7:54 PM:

A person I work with has a mailman that is in the reserves. His job in Iraq is to help build the permanent bases there. This is no surprise.

JD wrote on November 26, 2007 7:58 PM:

Will Congress go along with this or is it required that they do? Will Bush EVER be out of America's conscience?

Tricia wrote on November 26, 2007 7:59 PM:

Why would this be difficult for the next administration to reverse? Austraila just elected a new Prime Minister who will reverse many agreements made by Howard with our country, notably, withdrawing troops from Iraq. The next US administration must have the courage and principles to change the dynamics in the Iraq tragedy.

gwpriester wrote on November 26, 2007 8:10 PM:

What a surprise! Gosh, do you think this explains why we are building the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad? ;-)

searp wrote on November 26, 2007 8:36 PM:

Hilarious. We make a deal with a set of people in the IZ that represent nobody, and regard it as meaningful. If we can't control Iraq with 170,000 troops, what do we think changes when we sign a piece of paper with a few politicians that don't dare even leave the IZ without an army to guard them?

Hmmmer wrote on November 26, 2007 9:10 PM:

Wow! When bush stole the Presidency in 2000, I thought he would start a war. When he sent troops into Iraq, I thought, there will be a Yankee flag over that oil till the last drop. You see it's not about having the oil, it' about controlling the oil. Doing that, limits other countries development, India, China, or any booming economic threats to US capitalism etc.etc. However, what really boggles the mind is the apathy in the US. Just a very small portion of what has been wasted in $ over there could have paid for every single American to have totally free, perfect health care.

Just think about that. Hmmm?

garberpog wrote on November 26, 2007 10:40 PM:

In a sane world, the only issue would be, when he's handed over to the Hague, how many Secret Service agents will be allowed to come with him.

Roger wrote on November 26, 2007 10:49 PM:

In 2003, when the so-called liberation was completed according to Gdubya, it was plainly obvious even then that the USA military would be in Iraq until the oil runs dry.

Your grandkids will die in Iraq; count on it.

jcurlee wrote on November 26, 2007 11:11 PM:

Oil has always been what it (Iraq) is about. It goes beyond oil company profits to our way of life. What I have had a hard time understanding is that politicians can't seem to level with people about that.
A documentary called "A Crude Awakening" is a great way to understand what is really going on.

Kevin wrote on November 27, 2007 12:56 AM:

you guys complain so much about this war (which i think you should, by the way), but then where the hell are all the protesters?!?! remember vietnam? YOU guys brought home the troops. YOU guys should be in control of the government who is supposed to be working for YOU! get out there! do something about it!

Nick Durney wrote on November 27, 2007 6:09 AM:

Ever noticed how much Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki looks like a badly dressed shoe salesman.

Sporty wrote on November 27, 2007 8:14 AM:

How do you expect the oil companies to steal the Iraq's oil, if we don't have the military stay there to protect them.
Paying with our soldiers life and our tax dollars, while they steal Iraq's oil and shove their profits up our a...
Anyone believing that this nation isn't own and controlled by Global Corporations and the wealthy, just is not wrapped-tight.

Anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 10:02 PM:

Kevin:

I was protesting Iraq, in uniform with a sign, before the first bomb fell. There were a lot of us too.

It' made not one damned bit of difference to these guys. Nor did Saddam agreeing to leave Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9864433/

bushit wrote on November 27, 2007 10:26 PM:

fuk chimpbush and his family

Richard Villalobos wrote on November 29, 2007 3:29 PM:

THE BUSHIES JUST WON'T GIVE UP ON CONTROLLING THE OIL IN IRAQ!!!!. AFTER ALL, OUR OIL COMPANIES NEED TO CONTINUE MAKING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PROFITS. WOULD YOU BE SURPRISED IF THE BUSHIES, THE VICE PRESIDENT, AND ON DOWN THE LINE, OWN A BUNCH OF SHARES.

"THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE CAUSE OF ALL SIN."

"IF YOU WANT TO ENTER MY FATHER'S HEAVEN, GIVE ALL YOUR MONEY TO THE POOR, AND FOLLOW ME.

WHO WOULD BE SO SILLY AS TO SAY THAT??

Davis wrote on November 29, 2007 4:57 PM:

I would just like to say this, the only reason why we are in Iraq is OIL. If you think the reason is different; I am sorry for your ignorance. To believe anything this current presidential officeholder says is stupidity feeding the dumb. We are not going anywhere in this world because we are failing miserably. We are only worried about ourselves in the sense of feeding our own addictions. And anyone who has been around knows that being an addict is nothing more than a downward spiral to having nothing.

The problem is funneling money to the few while the rest of the body picks up the slack and takes the blame. We the people have done it to ourselves and there is no good end in sight. Look at the housing market…going down. Look at the Canadian dollar compared to ours…Ten years ago I could go to Canada and give them an American ten dollar bill and get back fifteen in Canadian dollars. Now if I give them a twenty American dollar bill I would only get nineteen and some change back.

There are many issues that are involved in why the economy sucks. So much more than I know, but I can tell you in my opinion why this is happening. Export to import ratio. The way a country becomes financially strong is by selling your products to other countries and in return their monies come rolling your way. Well if you become the consumer instead of the supplier then you send your hard earned dollars to the other countries, you know like the old saying “I spent so much money, I own stock in the company.” But the sad thing is that just because you buy their product doesn’t mean that you own anything more than what you have bought. And so we take a look at OIL. We use so much oil in our world that we send all of our money to other countries. And you have nothing to show for buying and using their product, except the need to fill the void when it runs out. And so begins the addiction theory.

Our society here in America is nothing more than a machine, keep the money rolling to the rich, whilst the others keep the country running. But the problem is that the rich are getting more greedy every day. And so you squeeze the American workers for every dime they have as long as Big Business gets its cut. And taking their ideals for the “Old World American Dream” and using it against them to get all the money out of them that they can. Food costs rising. Energy costs rising. And who is letting them do this…The GOVERNMENT. They are trying to appease the people they work for. YOU. And then we complain when we go to war. But the problem is that most of the people that are out there doing the complaining are too comfortable to do anything because they are content with their life standing. We have our football, our 500 channels, our McUnhealthy food stores, and Britney to keep us entertained and full of ourselves. Not to mention our fast cars and thirst for black gold.

I don’t want to be locked in Iraq for years and most Americans don’t either. But that’s where our interest is. Whose interests? The people who make a few dollars off the trading and selling of OIL in America, even though 90 percent of the profits go to other countries.

I will warn all of you now, buy weapons to protect yourself. Because at the rate we are going it is going to be up to you and me to protect our homeland when we exhaust all of our military resources to other places, while we become vulnerable here at home. If you asked me to join an army to fight for one mans point of view, I say HELL NO. But if you ask me to fight someone who is trying to take my country away…I would, till Death.

We are a dying breed. And the only thing that can save us is……….

i over it wrote on November 29, 2007 5:40 PM:

this can be changed.

stop buying...anything except for the bare necessities.

when they stop making money they will start listening.

mike wrote on November 29, 2007 6:05 PM:

not to support BUSH in any fashion, but does everyone realize we have military bases in just about every country where we had a conflict in the past, or offered our military power. Again america continues to be the world police

Guzzle a gallon, Kill a GI wrote on November 29, 2007 6:26 PM:

Oh, Hi.
Don't mind me, I'm just looking in to see how the plan is going and it seems to be working very well!

What plan? I guess you didn't get the memo.

1. Have big oil buy up most of the politicians, Democrat and Republican. Check!

2. Enlist the aid of conservative owned big media to spew propaganda. Check!

3. Create a Department of Homeland Security (with tax dollars) to spy on American Citizens. Check!

4. Have Bush administration (with the assistance of the purchased Congress) illegally invade a sovereign country. Check!

5. Have American troops pave the way with their lives and taxpayer dollars for big oil to control Iraq with their tens of thousands of mercenaries. Check!

6. While the American people are distracted by the war, have billions of their tax dollars transferred to the big business Bush/Cheney backers. Check!

7. Build infrastructure in Iraq for a permanent US presence. Check!

8. Create animosity and distrust between groups of Americans so that tempers flare and talk of revolt begins to spread. Check!

9. Use the Iraq situation as an inroad for the invasion and subjugation of other sovereign nations in the Middle East. In Process!

10. Institute a draft. When the time is right!

11. Have Homeland Security "discover" that "many" Americans are "plotting" to "violently overthrow" the government and subsequently declare martial law. Preparations are almost in place!

12. Reign forever. Almost makes me weep with joy at the thought!

You know, it might be a nice touch if the force that "occupies" America were to wear brown shirts. I must remember to suggest that.

Toodles!

patriotsdream wrote on November 29, 2007 8:44 PM:

Solution to the war: Reinstate the draft--no exemptions. It would be over in 90 days.

Need another problem solved? Okay, name one:

Health care? The environment? Education? Poverty? The budget deficit? The income gap? Media consolidation? Unresponsive congresspeople? Stolen elections? Oil wars? Unconscionable interest and fees by credit-card sompanies? Privatization of public property and institutions? Corporate welfare?

Hey, those are easy! The cure for ALL of them--and more--is to kick corporate money out of campaigns.

Nothing--repeat, nothing!--could have a more salutary impact on everything--repeat, everything!--that bugs us about America.

But talk about needing a revolution...hell, we'd have to get 10 million people marching on Washington with pikes and torches, like when they went after Frankenstein in the movie.

Most legislators would love to cast the moneychangers out of the temple of freedom, but not one of them dares to say so, or s/he'd be buried under a billion dollars of opposition at his/her next election.

Ben Decho wrote on November 29, 2007 9:50 PM:

Of course Maliki is meeting with Bush asking for a permanant presence.

He knows he can't hold back the Taliban without help from the US!

Why would this surprise anyone, Repulican or Democrat???

We're still in Japan, Germany, Korea, Vietnam and any other country we've been in war with. We have a permanant presence there too.

More than 2 soldiers a day die in the US in traffic accidents, home invasions, etc. Your statistcs, they do nothing!

All your base are belong to us!

Limpbaugh wrote on November 29, 2007 10:11 PM:

We have to stay until we've stolen the oil.

mike wrote on December 4, 2007 9:18 PM:

I have always referred to this man as the anti-Christ and Cheney as the false prophet. What does it take in this country to wake people up that the two Bozos we have running this country have to go...NOW.