Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 21, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Loss of Rainforests Is Double Whammy Threat to Climate






Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Bush Optimistic in the Face of Iraqi Resistance

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 14, 2008
Sarko and Bush
AP photo / Francois Mori

Sarko and the American: French President Nicolas Sarkozy welcomes President Bush for a dinner meeting at the Elysee Palace in Paris on Friday.

Despite two major challenges to the U.S. from Iraq on Friday—in the form of a breakdown in negotiations between the two nations over long-term plans for U.S. involvement there and Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s renewed call to arms against U.S. forces in Iraq—President Bush maintained a positive tone while discussing American-Iraqi relations on the Parisian leg of his current European tour.


The Washington Post:

“If I were a betting man, we’ll reach agreement with the Iraqis,” Bush said. “You know, we’re there at their invitation; they’re a sovereign nation.”

Bush said the United States would “work hard to accommodate their desires,” but also said that “we believe that a strategic relationship with Iraq is important” both for the United States and the region.

Also on Saturday, Iranian leaders rejected a package of economic, technological and political incentives presented by the European Union’s top diplomat in exchange for a suspension of uranium enrichment activities. The package was finalized last month by Germany and the five members of the U.N. Security Council: the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

amunaor's avatar

By amunaor, June 16, 2008 at 11:45 am Link to this comment

RE: Outraged

Bush on sovereignty, sound clip taken from one of his radio addresses: The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in securing its own national security. That duty falls to me as commander in chief.

From another sound clip to a gathered consortium of some sort - Question to Bush: What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century? Bush response: Tribal sovereignty means that, that it’s sovereign. You’re a, you’re a, you’ve been given sovereignty and your viewed as a sovereign entity (laughter from the crowd). Therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is a relationship between sovereign entities (more laughter).

Obviously, sovereignty is a thorn in the side of the supreme sovereign, who clutches a nuke in each hand as a reminder to all, that it is he who bestows sovereignty only to the malleable and compliant servant. From this mangled mental process evolves the term ‘LIMITED SOVEREIGNTY’.

RE: GW=MCHammered

(Just because the sand is painted red-white-blue doesn’t mean you have to keep your head buried in it.)

General Smedly Butler stated, “War is a racket and patriotism is nothing but a refuge for scoundrels”.

We need to keep the heat on the ‘Status of Forces Agreement’. The Washington regime of loose canons seems much too comfortable in getting away with this extortion.

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Report this

By Jim McGrath, June 16, 2008 at 8:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush’s positive attitude about Iraq remninds me of Voltaire’s Candide saying “tout va bien” in the face of a reality where nothing goes “bien.” Attitudes such as Bush’s Cheney’s, their policy makers’ and especially of the generals leading the charge, are a mix of denial, delusion, self-deception and lies, all culminating in the greatest malfeasance this country has ever experiences.  For more on the about the malfeasance of those in charge of the Iraq war fiasco, see my blog, The Wrath of McGrath, at http://www.wrathofmcgrath.com.

Report this

By Louise, June 16, 2008 at 7:16 am Link to this comment

The sleeping giant still sleeps. No need to wake him up.

Besides, there’s always the chance if the giant gets up on the wrong side of the bed, he may step on “them” instead of following them. And right now, he slumbers and they rape and plunder undisturbed.

Did Hitler have to burn down the Reichstag twice?

A second 9/11 will happen only if they decide the risk of loosing the Empire outweighs the risk of waking the giant. So it’s not so much a matter of Bush policy as a matter of keeping the giant asleep. And Bush doesn’t even think about that right now. After all he has mainstreammedia to keep the giant sleeping.

As an aside, yesterday I was watching some typical media wonks postulate on why they seem to be “losing” their wow-some hold on media control thanks to the un-controlled internet. And how “dangerous” it was, cause they are responsible news folks and we are just irresponsible “people” who think we understand how to “do” news.

One even said with no small measure of indignity, “They make fun of us!” They being the bloggers.

Well, in a perverted and tragic sort of way, it is funny and we need to do it more! Cause we’ve got them reduced to a bunch of winning wimps who spend massive amounts of money and untold countless hours covering “breaking” news that we scoop them on every time. And they know it!

And the increase of these “timely” wonk gatherings defending truth justice and a bought and paid for mainstreammedia proves ... they are running scared!

By the way, have you told everyone you know about the Kucinich articles of impeachment yet? We need to keep doing that, because the majority who care still don’t know! Still you will hear, “Really?” And, “How come I haven’t seen anything on the news?”

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, June 16, 2008 at 12:05 am Link to this comment

Re: zeitgeist

Great video concerning the Status of Forces Agreement.  Aijaz Ahmed, (the analyst) makes the assertion that the U.S. wants “limited sovereignty” for Iraq.  I wouldn’t doubt those were the exact words this admin used either, ANOTHER oxymoron.  So for principles sake, I thought I’d gather some definitions of SOVEREIGNTY for the admin, in case their “reading along”......LOL

American Heritage Dict.
1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.
4. A territory existing as an independent state.

Merriam Webster’s Dict. of Law
1 a : supreme power esp. over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY
2 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

Dictionary.com unabridged
1. the quality or state of being sovereign. 
2. the status, dominion, power, or authority of a sovereign; royalty. 
3. supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community. 
4. rightful status, independence, or prerogative. 
5. a sovereign state, community, or political unit.

LIMITED SOVEREIGNTY….!?!? What a joke…. I think the admin better just fess up and call it what it is, an occupation, a colony, or a 51st state….. OR GET OUT!

Re: Cyrena

The only POSSIBLE reason (as I pondered it) to continue the sanctions on Iraq would be to keep OUR LEADERS’ money-grubbing hands off the money.  Of course…then again… maybe they’ve already siphoned off billions and soon we’ll be hearing about the “procedural error” in their accounting…

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, June 15, 2008 at 11:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

re: JBlack

“Which of the Bush policies has prevented another 9/11 type of attack? Something was obviously done correctly. What was it?”

Wide open southern border; closed Air National Guard bases; Worthless new Coast Guard ships; attacking Iraq instead of focusing on the Osama-Ball; 40% more federal spending while the economy turns debt junkie…

The Bush policy that prevented another attack was THAT HE WAS IN ON THE FIRST ATTACK. Planes flying round-n-round over the USA for dozens of minutes trying to find their target while NORAD is where? Documents show he was warned.

Look at his face. See his behavior. C’mon. His daddy’s New World Order NEEDED another Pearl Harbor and lil’ Bush has just the correct illness to keep it coming, daddio.

Just because the sand is painted red-white-blue doesn’t mean you have to keep your head buried in it.

Report this

By Marshall, June 15, 2008 at 6:07 pm Link to this comment

What tone would the author expect Bush to take over the discussions with Iraq?  Fatalism and pessimism? Of COURSE he’s taking an optimistic tone.  And if it becomes strategically advantageous to take a different tone, then I would hope we’d do that as well.  That’s how negotiation is performed.

The end result will hopefully be an agreement that’s in both country’s best interests.

Report this

By Arabian Thoroughbred, June 15, 2008 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By JBlack, June 15 at 12:28 pm #

An open question to anyone here:

Which of the Bush policies has prevented another 9/11 type of attack? Something was obviously done correctly. What was it?
============================
Answer to JBlack question:

1. What prevented another 9/11 attack is because the insiders who planed and executed 9/11 have achieved their goals of controlling this country for eight years through fear-mongering. Yet, they might attempt it again before Barack Obama becomes president. So don’t celebrate yet.

2. An attack of the magnitude of 9/11 requires a lot of sophisticated and lengthy preparation if it was done from without. If Al-Qaida was responsible, which I doubt, it was partly directed against George Bush and the neocons. If McCain wins the presidency, there will be another attempt. If Obama wins, moderates his foreign policy and distances himself from the Zionist control, America should never fear again an attack from without.

Report this

By samosamo, June 15, 2008 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment

jblack,

w & dick have not decided to attack america again.

Report this
amunaor's avatar

By amunaor, June 15, 2008 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

Status of Forces Agreement a Bush Clan Blackmail

Under the agreement, formally known as a “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America,” Iraq would:

* Grant the U.S. long-term rights to maintain as many military bases as it wants—58 by some accounts, compared to the present 30—and where it wants them.

* Allow the U.S. to conduct military strikes against Iran and any other country without the permission of the Iraqi government.

* Allow the U.S. to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq.

* Allow U.S. forces to arrest any Iraqi for any reason without consulting local authorities.

* Grant immunity from Iraqi law to U.S. troops and contractors.

* Place the Iraqi Defense, Interior and National Security ministries under U.S. supervision for 10 years.

* Give the U.S. responsibility for Iraqi armament contracts for 10 years.

And although the word oil does not appear anywhere in the agreement, there is an open secret of a quid pro quo: U.S. oil companies get first dibs at Iraq’s vast untapped oil wealth and Al-Maliki gets coup insurance.

There will be unrest as long as America troops remain there and unless they hole up in their bases, American troops will continue dying. How would Americans feel if belligerent forces were parked off its coastal areas, aggravated by marauding troop movements throughout its interior regions?

From an Iraqi perspective it is deeply humiliating. In one fell swoop, it neuters Iraq’s national sovereignty, something of no less pride and importance to Iraqis than it is to Americans.

Why then would the Baghdad government go along with such a rotten deal? Because the U.S. is blackmailing it to the tune of $50 billion.

That is the amount in U.S. dollars being held hostage in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the form of Iraqi foreign exchange reserves as a result of U.N. sanctions dating back to the first Gulf War.

The White House considers the agreement to be an “executive accord” and refuses to submit it to Congress, as law and tradition dictate, because it would never be ratified, tying the hands of all future presidents with an egregious, personal military contract.

Perhaps, to make the deal fair, we could give Iraq 50 bases within the U.S. from with to anonymously launch operations with absolute impunity.

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Report this
amunaor's avatar

By amunaor, June 15, 2008 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment

Sorry for the duplicate. It apeared not to go through the first time.

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Report this
amunaor's avatar

By amunaor, June 15, 2008 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment

Chris Hedges, thanks! Hammer on the following:

The biggest concern now should be the media blackout concerning the Bush Oligarchs push to implement what is known as the ‘Status of Forces Agreement’ and the true nature of this agreement. If the Washington regime, through slight of hand, is successful in this, it will tie Barack’s hands in fulfilling his stated mission, to remove ALL U.S. troops from the region at all. The deadline is the end of July. If successful, the Washington regime expects the measure to boost McCain’s position in November. This is serious stuff!

Watch RealNews video concerning this issue:

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1656

This should be of Utmost Urgency to all of us who stand with Obama regarding his position on diplomacy and the removal of all troops, rather than the image of the current ranting, crusading lunatic, standing on top of the hill with a nuke clutched in each hand, demanding submission by all to the corporate empire.

The “The Status of Forces Agreement” if successful, is to be Bush’s complete circumvention of any Congressional approval, forcing a military treaty down the throats of both governments, U.S. and Iraqi, imposing itself as an intimidating hornets nest, by its perpetual occupation of the area.

The Iraqi people, what’s left of them, won’t stand for it and certainly not the Iranians. If they don’t stand up against this ‘slight of hand’ they can bend over and kiss any notion of sovereignty good-bye. The Great White U.S. dictator will, of course, try and sell this poison disguised in the candy wrapper of ‘security’.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilize Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

Momentum is also growing within the Maliki administration for the US to leave altogether. Mr Maliki was in Iran this week where the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told him not to sign up to any long-term security deals with Washington.

The agreement is being negotiated by David Satterfield, the US State Department’s top adviser on Iraq, who still maintains it can be initialled by a July.
***

As for Kucinich’s articles of impeachment, watch this brief video clip of the Judiciary in action. The two incidents depicted in the clip display how an unnamed Republican impeded the Judiciaries investigative prodding’s into the subject of torture and the strangle-hold special interests have on government. Republicans invoked the rarely used “two hour rule” that states no hearing can run more than two hours. Incredible, to say the least!

Video:

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1693

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

P.S.

Here are the names of the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee. They have also earlier buried the Articles against VP Cheney. Only Rep. Wexler has signed on to Kucinich’s Articles against Bush. Throw the other rascals out in November. Their Republican opponents are undoubtedly terrible political troglodytes but at least they are not hypocritical bums on impeachment. History will harshly judge the cowardice of these “honorables.”

Dishonorable (etc) Conyers, Berman, Boucher, Nader, Scott, Watt, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Waters, Delahunt, Sanchez, Cohen, Johnson, Sutton, Guitierrez, Sherman, Baldwin, Weiner, Schiff, Davis, Wasseman Schulz (maybe not, she publicly supports Dennis), Ellison.

Report this
amunaor's avatar

By amunaor, June 15, 2008 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment

The biggest concern now should be the media blackout concerning the Bush Oligarchs push to implement what is known as the ‘STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT’ and the true nature of this agreement. If the Washington regime, through slight of hand, is successful in this, it will tie Barack’s hands in fulfilling his stated mission, to remove ALL U.S. troops from the region at all. The deadline is the end of July. If successful, the Washington regime expects the measure to boost McCain’s position in November. This is serious stuff!

Watch RealNews video concerning this issue:

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1656

This should be of Utmost Urgency to all of us who stand with Obama regarding his position on diplomacy and the removal of all troops, rather than the image of the current ranting, crusading lunatic, standing on top of the hill with a nuke clutched in each hand, demanding submission by all to the corporate empire.

The “The Status of Forces Agreement” if successful, is to be Bush’s complete circumvention of any Congressional approval, forcing a military treaty down the throats of both governments, U.S. and Iraqi, imposing itself as an intimidating hornets nest, by its perpetual occupation of the area.

The Iraqi people, what’s left of them, won’t stand for it and certainly not the Iranians. If they don’t stand up against this ‘slight of hand’ they can bend over and kiss any notion of sovereignty good-bye. The Great White U.S. dictator will, of course, try and sell this poison disguised in the candy wrapper of ‘security’.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilize Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

Momentum is also growing within the Maliki administration for the US to leave altogether. Mr Maliki was in Iran this week where the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told him not to sign up to any long-term security deals with Washington.

The agreement is being negotiated by David Satterfield, the US State Department’s top adviser on Iraq, who still maintains it can be initialled by a July.
***

As for Kucinich’s articles of impeachment, watch this brief video clip of the Judiciary in action. The two incidents depicted in the clip display how an unnamed Republican impeded the Judiciaries investigative prodding’s into the subject of torture and the strangle-hold special interests have on government. Republicans invoked the rarely used “two hour rule” that states no hearing can run more than two hours. Incredible, to say the least!

Video:

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1693

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

P.S.

Here are the names of the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee. They have also earlier buried the Articles against VP Cheney. Only Rep. Wexler has signed on to Kucinich’s Articles against Bush. Throw the other rascals out in November. Their Republican opponents are undoubtedly terrible political troglodytes but at least they are not hypocritical bums on impeachment. History will harshly judge the cowardice of these “honorables.”

Dishonorable (etc) Conyers, Berman, Boucher, Nader, Scott, Watt, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Waters, Delahunt, Sanchez, Cohen, Johnson, Sutton, Guitierrez, Sherman, Baldwin, Weiner, Schiff, Davis, Wasseman Schulz (maybe not, she publicly supports Dennis), Ellison.

Report this

By samosamo, June 15, 2008 at 11:07 am Link to this comment

“If I were a betting man, we’ll reach agreement with the Iraqis,” Bush said. “You know, we’re there at their invitation; they’re a sovereign nation.”

It is like the nightmare that never ends. Why is this criminal still allowed to keep committing crimes and talking out the side of his face? He just showed for the upteenth time that his favorite hobby is rubbing shit in people’s faces. In this instance, Chalmers Johnson in my opinion because Mr. Johnson has directly stated that as a part of hegemony the people on the receiving end never allow dominance by consent or invitation. And this is something the the msm will really play up so to make it a truth. Before too long this will be accepted and the numbbies will be parroting this from now on.
There by invitation, this should put another nail in the idea of the criminality of the 5 consevative justices that stopped the recount in the 2000 election. It also better make people think about how Ohio was subverted in 2004 to keep this horrible, evil criminal known as w(I bet he still misspells his name even when it is down to this one letter) in the white house to play out the neocon’s game plan from all those think tank years starting in the mid 1970s.

Report this

By Louise, June 15, 2008 at 10:54 am Link to this comment

Sometimes I look at photos of Bush and I’m reminded of a dear friend, who had a great up-beat attitude. This photo is one of them.

The many faces of Bush can be described as attractive, hateful, affectionate, comedic, ugly, angry, happy, anxious, but rarely wise. What appears to be an up-beat attitude is actually a reflection of mind-numbing ignorance. So the reminder comes as a need to reflect on reality.

My dear friend was very wise and intelligent, so he ALWAYS looked genuinely up-beat. My dear friend never looked like a confused ground squirrel caught in the headlights seconds before he became one with the road.

I suspect if my dear friend were still around, he’d grow a beard to avoid being mistaken for Bush. ‘Cause there’s lots of angry people who know bad stuffs happening, but don’t pay enough attention to study the many faces of Bush.

The many faces of Bush are not because the Bush has lots of “doubles,” but because the Bush is lots of people, all crammed into one skull and competing for thinking room. Sometimes it gets crowded in there. But he always finds a way to come out on top. He being the real Bush, although I doubt too many close to him know that man. Actually, I doubt that man knows that man.

Classic schizoid behavior relies on surrounding oneself with yes men/women and people who will allow he/she continue being the Center of their Universe. A quick run-down of the list of Bush loyalists shows they all fall into that definition, which means they’ve been hanging around in his universe for to long, which means they’re all as nuts as he is!

And serious journalists reporting remarks like, “we’ll reach agreement with the Iraqis ... You know, we’re there at their invitation,” as serious, and intended for serious consumption as serious news, have obviously been hanging around the Bush for to long too. ‘Cause their all friggin nuts!

I suspect the only sane person we associate with the brain of Bush might be Karl Rove, because he so ably maneuvered and managed the man inside [and from outside] his little universe. Noting evil does not require insanity, or vice-versa ... or whatever.

And what’s all this got to do with Bush optimism in the face of Iraqi resistance anyway?

Not much, other than a blank space does not equal optimism, and being able to open mouth and utter verbiage does not mean intelligent thought process, and I’m still looking for the document that says:

“Dear Mr. Bush,

Please invade us and kill us and destroy our homes and our infrastructure and our country and mutilate our kids and create a population of crippled, angry orphans, please.

Thank you very much Mr. Bush.
[signed]

A grateful Iraq.”

That, and I cant access the article, so I’m winging it!

Report this

By cyrena, June 15, 2008 at 10:43 am Link to this comment

•  “If Iraq doesn’t have sovereignty then who would be the responsible party for the illegalities taking place in Iraq.”

Outraged, this is my favorite question. (been trying to figure it out for a while now). Needless to say, it’s complicated by the fact that this is an illegal occupation, and the US is pretending that Iraq has been sovereign since the Bremer CPA allegedly handed them back their sovereignty, except of course that’s not really the case.

If they called it what it actually IS; an occupation, then the laws of occupation make the US responsible for all of the illegalities taking place. It also makes the US responsible for the protection of all civilians, (rather than the killing of them) and it makes them responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructure that guarantees basic services to the civilian population, and on and on.

But they aren’t calling it an occupation, just like they never called it an illegal invasion. And now, they’ve even managed to semi-legitimatize it by way of a UN Mandate scheduled to expire at the end of the year. It allegedly recognizes Iraqi sovereignty, and still provides a legitimate cover for the US to be there…for what purposes I don’t know, since I admit I’ve not gone over the language of it. (Maybe I’ll get a chance to do that this week).

I have no idea how these sanctions from 1990 can STILL be in place! It’s Iraq’s money, and Cockburn also mentioned that the Iraqis (since they are supposedly sovereign) have requested access many times, because they’d like to be able to put their money (at least some of that $50 billion) in other currencies. (gold or the Euro, or any other…specifically since the dollar is so rapidly declining in value). The US won’t allow that, (because of what further damage that would do to the dollar) and of course we know that was in part, why they removed Saddam to begin with. (he was about to do the same).

Meantime, in the larger picture, (which I admit is really difficult to see) the Iraqis have actually been holding out pretty well. They have yet to sign over their oil to the transnationals, (with the exception of the Kurds who have entered into some illegal agreements outside the sovereign integrity of the state) and that has had Cheney in full battery agitation for years now, but especially since the ‘surge’ which he figured was gonna do ‘em in once and for all. They’ve only EVER had Maliki and his immediate ‘team’ to obtain support based on the extreme pressure that they exert on him. But, it’s never been enough, because neither the Parliament or the Iraqi people have been willing to go along with it. So while that may seem like a small success in terms of all of the total destruction, there is something to be said for the results of that resistance.

I think a good move for Iraq right now would be a coup to remove Maliki. Let him flee to Iran or wherever else, since he’s obviously going to need protection. But if the Iraqis don’t make the change, then the US WILL force this down their throats, by going through Maliki. That’s what they’ve done all along, and that’s the only way they could do it now.

I don’t know what the hell is wrong with the UN either, except of course the US still manages to manipulate them as well.

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, June 15, 2008 at 8:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bu$h’s deep-in-denial op-duh-mism is malignant and unfortunately all too common in govern-meant these daze. But I’d pay real tax dollars to see him in a white jacket with sleeves that tie in the back, rehabilitated, then committed to serving others in a mental ward the rest of his life. He just has too many layered, costly personality disorders to be in public.

Report this

By troublesum, June 15, 2008 at 7:41 am Link to this comment

This is great.  The Iraqi government has him by the balls.  Democracy was his idea.  The whole world will soon find out just what democracy means to him.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 15, 2008 at 7:15 am Link to this comment

Deception of spreading Democracy when we are not one ourselves does seem a bit far fetched.  Guess, we are not going to tell Iraq we are spreading and expanding our Plutocracy.  Wear you flag pen, maybe it will catch on.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, June 14, 2008 at 11:15 pm Link to this comment

If Iraq doesn’t have sovereignty then who would be the responsible party for the illegalities taking place in Iraq. (Great link Cyrena)

Quote, Patrick Cockburn: “the Iraqi reserves, the Iraqi money, is in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The reason it’s there is historical and rather surprising. It dates from 1990, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and there are still really sanctions against Iraq as a danger to the rest of the world. That money, about $50 billion, is in the bank. But there have been many court cases brought against it. It’s protected currently by a presidential immunity. And what US negotiators in Baghdad have been implying to their Iraqi counterparts is that if they don’t cut a deal on American terms, then that presidential immunity might lapse at the end of the year, and the Iraqis wouldn’t be able to get their hands on these massive reserves, which they need very badly.”

Why are these sanctions STILL in effect…?  And just WHO (think really hard) is trying to get their hands on this FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS..?  The money should go back to Iraq and we should get out of THEIR country.  As a sovereign nation, I’m sure they’d take right kindly to that gesture.

Report this

By Arabian Thoroughbred, June 14, 2008 at 9:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Every time this idiot opens his mouth, it smells very bad as if he speaks from his rectum! And that makes me like throwing up! I can hardly count the times this idiot made me feel like vomiting!

My latest wonder is about whether this idiot knows the true meaning of the concept of “optimism.” This man needs to be put on trial for crimes against humanity not only for the too much blood he has on his hands, but also for his constant abuse of a human language he uses to continue misleading and mocking normal people and defying reality. One of his sentences should be to put him in a kindergarten facility so he can learn all over again how to be a normal human being . It would be nice if they put me in charge of this facility with a mandate to use the rod so that not to spoil the child again! “Spare the rod, spoil the child.”

Report this

By cyrena, June 14, 2008 at 8:58 pm Link to this comment

You’re welcome grammaconcept..any time. smile

We need to know these things.

Try this one as well when you have time, and if you’re interested. My sister’s kids routinely complain that I ‘assign’ them more stuff than their teachers. And then they say, “yeah, yeah, yeah..we know..we need to know.” And I say..yep..you do!

But, they’re good kids, and anxious to know what they ‘need to know’ but there’s a blackout in information for the average citizen these days, even in most of the schools. (at least the ones I’m familiar with). So Chris is right that ‘they’ seem to think we’re mushrooms, (or they want us to be).

Now I don’t have as much luck keeping my own ‘generation’ informed. At least not my former colleagues on the coporate plantation. Between work and church, they are under a COMPLETE and TOTAL information blackout. But, they seem to like it that way..very resistant to anything slightly resembling the reality of the day. Matter of fact, you’d think by their reactions to news that I was trying to get ‘em hooked on heroine or something. Go figure. They’ll be the first ones we’ll have to rescue from the concentration camps.

Anyway, here’s the link to the interview Amy Goodman had with Patrick Cockburn. He knows the Middle East, (and Iraq especially) very well.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/12/iraq_correspondent_patrick_cockburn_on_the

Purplewolf, I love you post. You’re rght. The potted plant wouldn’t have a clue to the meaning of sovereignty if it bit him on his worthless ass. He’s the epitome of the Banality of Evil.

Report this

By GrammaConcept, June 14, 2008 at 8:25 pm Link to this comment

Thank You, Cyrena…..Great Link…......makes up a lot for the other missing one…
Like the man said…..Pssst….Pass it on…..

Report this

By GrammaConcept, June 14, 2008 at 8:06 pm Link to this comment

previous message was to Chris Horton….....

A valiant effort…..but….link goes to nada…got another?

Report this

By GrammaConcept, June 14, 2008 at 8:04 pm Link to this comment

Sadly, your link leads to…....story all gone…..

Report this

By purplewolf, June 14, 2008 at 2:22 pm Link to this comment

Invitation, invasion, same thing in Bush’s book as he was and still is illiterate. Using the wrong word in the wrong place for the wrong meaning is part of his persona. In fact they have told the US to get out of their country numerous times, only to have it fall on deaf ears of the Bush Administration.

As for G.W. knowing that Iraq was a sovereign nation, his does not know what that is. When Bush was questioned on a news show-live-in the past few years they made comment pertaining something about a sovereign nation, I believe it was about the Native American Indians and Bush, in his confused self, became flustered and when the interviewer pressed him further if he know what being a sovereign nation meant, he said it was a nation, you know, that is sovereign. DUH! The man is a moron. Only when they throw us out manually and slam the door in the face of the invaders of their country, then Bush might, and that’s a mighty questionable might, realize we are not there by invitation and we are not welcome either. Like rotten garbage, the uninvited invasion of Iraq by Bushco Inc. stunk long ago.

As for Gadees comment about,“this man is of a special creed,”. Back in the 60"s the term “special” usually referred to a person with less than average intellectual skills. This fits Bush very well. This person just doesn’t get it on too many levels.

Report this

By dick, June 14, 2008 at 1:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush is great; the best president the power elite have ever put in the office. And the masses? It does not matter what they think or want.

Report this

By gadees, June 14, 2008 at 11:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It seems that history is repeating itself,just like the old days when the US invaded Phillippine and termed the invasion as an invitation by a sovereign nation.No Iraqi in his right mind would accept to legalize the occupation of his country.This man is of a special creed to think for a moment, that people do believe his hallucination about democracy and sovereignty of Iraq.What also boggles the mind, is his continuous lie of working to establish a Palestinian state when Israel continues unabatedly with the establishment of new settlements.Deep inside of each respected journalists attended the joint Sarkozy/Bush conference,there lies a mathematical contempt towars a person who himself doesn’t believe in what he says.

Report this

By Tony, June 14, 2008 at 11:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You will be aware of Bush’s strange apology in Europe last week for his belligerent language over the years. He was worried it might give him the reputation of warmonger. The warmonger legacy is assured but it is less to do with language and more to do with the wars he has mongered.

Report this

By cyrena, June 14, 2008 at 10:41 am Link to this comment

•  ““If I were a betting man, we’ll reach agreement with the Iraqis,” Bush said. “You know, we’re there at their invitation; they’re a sovereign nation.” “
Sociopath George * is* a betting man, and he been betting and losing all of his life, except that everyone except him pays for his bad bets. He bets other peoples’ lives. He’s full of shit claiming that Iraq is a sovereign nation because violated their sovereignty over 6 years ago, and continues to do it to this day. We are NOT there at their invitation, and we never have been. How do you call an invasion and occupation by military force an invitation? And if they’ve insisted for just as long that we GET OUT and we refuse to leave, how are we there at their invitation?


http://www.truthout.org/article/iraqi-parliaments-push-sovereignty

Report this

By Chris Horton, June 14, 2008 at 10:33 am Link to this comment

A search on this essential, major story finds that it is not being carried by the media from which most Americans get their news.  The fact that most people are not getting the real story from Iraq is setting us up to go along with the massive repression - and perhaps the war on Iran - that must follow the popular explosion that is coming there. The url points to a longer version of the Post story. 

I urge all to cut and paste the following, and forward it to your Address list, with News Chain Alert in the subject line.  Let’s get the news flowing across the Internet to the people!

& & &

News Chain Alert: The following major and essential story was also carried by CNN, MSNBC, the BBC, Yahoo, the New York Times and some other major papers, and by a number of local affiliates of CBS. It was not carried by CBS nationally, ABC, NBC, FOX, PBS, NPR, AOL or msn, or by most newspapers. It is fair to assume that most Americans are not getting this story.

If you received this email from someone you trust, open the article, take a look at it, and if you agree that it should have been on the news, forward it to your address list. Together we can break the news blackout by the major media corporations and get the news flowing freely across the Internet!
……………………..

Key Iraqi Leaders Deliver Setbacks to U.S.
Premier Rejects Terms of Proposed Pacts; Cleric Reactivates Militia

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2008/06/13/AR2008061302019_pf.html

& & &

“They must think we’re mushrooms … “

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook