On the road for the holiday, but here's a little nugget--and it's updated below. And let's notice that this Thanksgiving, George W. Bush did not bother to visit the troops in Iraq and serve them turkey....
As George W. Bush continues his vanishing presidency act, he's not had to deal with much fallout from the agreement his administration has negotiated with the government of Iraq--an agreement that compels the U.S. to remove its forces from Iraq. Given that Bush had repeatedly vowed that he would not agree to any timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq--claiming that making such a commitment would endanger the United States and its soldiers--his decision to do so is the equivalent of raising a white flag. Since most of the public barely bothers to think about Bush these days, his flip-flop has not been such a big deal. But those who watch Iraq closely have seen it for what it is.
For example, here's a press release from the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation:
Peter Galbraith, a top Iraq expert and former ambassador to Croatia, issued a statement today on the status of forces agreement recently signed by the United States and Iraq...."The agreement represents a stunning and humiliating reversal of course by the Bush administration, which had vehemently opposed any timetable for withdrawal from Iraq," said Galbraith.
Iraqi and American negotiators have been working on the security agreement for over a year. The Iraqi parliament is expected to vote on the pact on Wednesday. To pass, the agreement needs to get 138 votes out of 275 Iraqi lawmakers and also must be ratified by the Iraqi presidential council.
"For the last two years, President Bush has pretended that Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki is a democrat and an American ally. In fact, Maliki is a sectarian Shiite politician who heads a government dominated by pro-Iranian religious parties," remarked Galbraith. "The U.S. presence now no longer serves the interests of Iraq's ruling Shiite religious parties or their Iranian allies, so we are now being asked to leave."
The agreement mandates that "all U.S. combat forces" withdraw from urban areas in Iraq by June 30, 2009, and that "all U.S. forces" withdraw from the country by December 31, 2011. The agreement upholds Iraq's "sovereign right" to demand the departure of U.S. forces anytime and recognizes the United States' "sovereign right" to remove its forces earlier than the end of 2011.
....The agreement also bars permanent American bases in Iraq, prohibits the United States from using Iraqi territory to launch attacks against other nations, and bars any residual U.S. forces in Iraq beyond the end of 2011.
Galbraith concluded: "While U.S. withdrawal is made easier by the fact that both the Iraqi government and the new U.S. administration want American troops out, the confluence of events leading to the agreement underscores the folly of President Bush's lost Iraq war."
The Iraqi parliament was expected to vote on this agreement on Wednesday.
UPDATE: On Thursday, the Iraqi parliament approved the agreement, adding some provisions that restrict certain U.S. military activities in Iraq.
![[RSS]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
![[ARCHIVES]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/archives_icon.png){kind=icon}
Comments
DC,
We will be paying for his folly for many years to come.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Posted by: capt
| November 26, 2008 12:06 PM
""Bush's Final Defeat in Iraq""
ya, some defeat.
1.2 million iraqis dead.
http://tinyurl.com/5fxdqw
Posted by: as_if!
| November 26, 2008 1:00 PM
ABSURD TO THE INSANE
Our U.S. Congress signs America's death warrant by the tens of thousands every month. While one in every six American children lives below the poverty line, Congress imports 200,000 immigrants every month that equal 2.4 million legal and illegal immigrants annually that need housing, medical care and education. While 28 million Americans subsist on food stamps, we host 20 million illegal aliens that displace jobs from those Americans without jobs. With 14 million Americans unemployed, our U.S. Congress outsources, insources and offshores jobs with incredible alacrity.
http://rense.com/general84/absurd.htm
Posted by: as_if!
| November 26, 2008 2:01 PM
While Peter Galbraith is a former ambassador, calling him a "top Iraq expert" is a stretch. He has worked with the Kurds in Northern Iraq for years, and favors Kurdish independence- which the vast majority of Iraqi's do not favor.
Anyone who has spent any time in Iraq would never suggest that the government is dominated by "pro-Iranian religious parties."
The main reason the Iraqi's want the U.S. to leave are to re-establish their sovereignty, as would any nation of proud people, which the Iraqi's certainly are.
While the status of forces agreement does represent a change in policy, it is largely the result of the success of the surge, and the fact that the Iraqi military is finally able to take care of internal security in Iraq.
With all due respect, Mr. Galbraith is a long-time Bush hater, does not support the wish of the Iraqi people for a unified country and so his views must be taken with a grain of salt.
Don't be surprised if the Iraqi's, in their new found sovereignty, don't later ask the U.S. to stay on with a base or two after 2011.
And, yes, I did spend a year in Iraq, working a a volunteer on reconstruction efforts.
Posted by: dcguy
| November 26, 2008 3:30 PM
""And, yes, I did spend a year in Iraq, working a a volunteer on reconstruction efforts.""
ya good for you "volunteer" - two members of my family have been sent to iraq - one has expired by explosion and the other was damaged and after a recuperation has been "stop-lossed" into afghanistan.
why exactly have U.S. troops been sent to afghanistan and iraq and why the fuck are they still there?
Posted by: as_if!
| November 26, 2008 6:29 PM
"A Second 9/11": An Integral Part of US Military Doctrine
For several years now, senior officials of the Bush administration including the President and the Vice President have intimated, in no uncertain terms, that there will be "a Second 9/11".
The triggering of civilian deaths in the Homeland is used as an instrument of war propaganda. The objective is to turn realities upside down. The agressor nation is being attacked. The USA is a victim of war by the "State sponsors" of "Islamic terrorism", when in reality it is the perpetrator of a large scale theater war in the Middle East.
http://tinyurl.com/6y9wzr
Posted by: as_if!
| November 27, 2008 1:05 AM
The two main parties in the Iraqi parliment are Dawa (the prime minister's party) and SIIC. Ayatollah Sistani is the final authority for SIIC, and by extension, Dawa. Both Dawa and SIIC are sectarian parties with close ties to Iran. Sistani is Iranian, not iraqi. I don't believe that control of the Iraqi parliment by sectarian parties with close ties to Iran is a particularly bad thing. The idea that the Bush administration had that secular parties could win a majority was as stupid an idea as any since the decision to invade Iraq. dcquy may have spent a year in Iraq, but his posting is pure propaganda. Of course it has been written in many places that the principal qualification for a job in Iraq was policital backgound, not expertise. Please, dcguy, tell us what your job in Iraq was, where you lived and were posted, and what your qualifications were for that job. Of course, all of that "information" would be meaningless if you didn't supply your real name so that it can be checked.
Posted by: dickdata
| November 28, 2008 11:51 AM
"Here's a real wild one: After the food shortages start, bankers will be hunted down and barbequed (eaten) by angry mobs":
http://tinyurl.com/5bjw4x
Posted by: as_if!
| November 28, 2008 12:34 PM
The Ghosts of Desert Storm
"The extensive body of scientific research now available consistently indicates that Gulf War illness is real, that it is the result of neurotoxic exposures during Gulf War deployment, and that few veterans have recovered or substantially improved with time."
http://tinyurl.com/5qubvw
Posted by: as_if!
| November 29, 2008 9:05 AM
Flip Flop?
It is a gross misrepresentation to call the timeline for withdrawal a flip flop on the part of President Bush. The timeline is the result of a negotiation with the government of Iraq, not a change in position. As evidence I offer that the US negotiated hard for a more open ended agreement, but this just wasn’t possible in Iraqi politics.
A flip flop is when one changes their mind or position. You know, voting for it before you vote against it, or maybe saying you will use public campaign financing and then opting out. Having to settle for less than you want in a negotiation? Hardly.
What would you have him do when you cant get all you want in a negotiation? immediate withdrawal? or the Barry O option start withdrawal immediate?
Thomas Donnelly from the American Enterprise Institute, and a real expert on Iraq notes that this is hardly a win for Iran. It is a huge setback. Iran is vehemently opposed and lobbied hard against the signing of any SOF agreement. Iran had an ongoing propaganda campaign against the SOF agreement. Bribing Iraqi politicians, and putting out rumors that the Ayatollah Sistani opposed the agreement. When Sistani endorsed the agreement it completely undermined the Iranian position.
Posted by: Harry
| December 1, 2008 7:45 AM
Bush's Delusional Take on His Legacy
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/109187/
*****
Clearly Bunnypants isn't the only delusional character.
Posted by: capt
| December 1, 2008 8:52 AM
Wow, a post straight from AEI. Not just anybody from AEI, but a card-carrying PNAC member. Ex director no less, and a director at a huge defense contractor. haha That was quite a post!
Best be careful in your bubble Harry, you could end up like this person...
http://bettybowers.com/betty4president/?p=147
Posted by: Alan
| December 1, 2008 10:08 AM
lol
Posted by: capt
| December 1, 2008 11:06 AM
Post A Comment