comment #1

Ortega says ...

Ummm... I can just see the Bush aides and right-wingers dismissing the news as conspiracy-theory hogwash, but I really wouldn't put it past Bush and his cronies to try to push this. W is borderline obsessed with his place in history, and this is the only chance he has to save face in regards to his legacy. But I'm still not sure how could they make it so Obama can't call off the invasion.

comment #2

dcc77 says ...

Jeff...please.

comment #3

p.Vice says ...

This comes as no surprise. I just hope the suicide bombers hit the White House before Obama takes over.

comment #4

admiralmpj says ...

Seesh.

I have heard more about this story than any other today.

Okay, to start off, according to Reuters, a majority of Iraqi Lawmakers have sent a letter to Congress, basically telling them (us), that "we ain't signing jack until you get your troops out of Iraq."

So that does that.

The deal is a non-starter. A wish list for the Bush Administration

There are so many problems with this story, I almost don't know where to begin:

1) This deal sounds strangely like a Treaty, something that Bush would have to have approved by the Senate. So what does Unitary Executive do? Declare that this "Security Agreement" is not a Treaty. The Senate may not see it that way. Just because Bush said he didn't have to go to Congress doesn't make it so.

2) Just because Bush signs this treaty, does not mean a possible President Obama has to run with it, especially if Bush circumvented Congress to get 'er done.

3) At some point Bush would have to fund said deal with Iraq, and if Congress doesn't fund it (which even a Republican Congress might be hesitant to do) the deal is dead, no matter what Bush says.

4) Assuming Congress were to agree to fund it, then Bush would have to get a signature from the Iraqi Leader, Nuri al-Maliki (no easy feat).

5) And Nuri al-Maliki would have to get approval from his own "Congress" in the form of the Iraqi National Assembly. (The National Assembly, thus far, has proved unable to agree on what time it is, much less agree to a Security Agreement that'll keep U.S. Troops in Iraq indefinitely).

comment #5

BurmaShave says ...

We're building an "Embassy" the size of the Vatican but people actually expected us to ever leave?

comment #6

Mgmax says ...

Look folks, how are we going to steal all the oil if we don't have bases there?

comment #7

SpinDozer says ...

"I have heard more about this story than any other today."

Reeallly? I haven't seen it covered on any of the major news outlets (& I looked).

'"we ain't signing jack until you get your troops out of Iraq."

So that does that.'

Well, maybe. It tells us what many Iraqi lawmakers want, but there may be ways around that.

"1) This deal sounds strangely like a Treaty, something that Bush would have to have approved by the Senate. "

It sounds like a treaty, but could in fact, be an 'agreement' which does not require congressional approval. Suggest you google military agreemant and congressional approval.

I agree with much of what you say, but never underestimate the powers of the Commander in Chief during wartime, ask John Woo.

comment #8

deadre says ...

how would this make Bush a hero? it would make him a criminal. Would that start a permanent draft? I'm going to see what Keith says..

comment #9

Walter Sobchak says ...

Perhaps it's something along the lines of what we have in Germany, Japan and South Korea.

(imagine it's 1946) "You mean by 2008 we'll STILL have troops in Germany?!"

comment #10

D.Z. says ...

Walter: "Perhaps it's something along the lines of what we have in Germany, Japan and South Korea."

I didn't know those countries have ethnic civil wars and suicide bombers, too.

comment #11

T. S. Idiot says ...

We have to stay in Iraq regardless of who's president, who's in congress, etc.? What sense does that make? Agreements are made to be changed.

comment #12

Walter Sobchak says ...

Do you ever write anything entirely of your own, D.Z.? That's why so many on here find you to be such an annoying shit. It's not even your wacky left of left of left politics. Can you just for once try a different approach instead of cutting and pasting what other people say and then offering your pithy, bitchy, moral-equivalence one-liners?

comment #13

Walter Sobchak says ...

D.Z. says...

"Do you ever write anything entirely of your own, D.Z.? That's why so many on here find you to be such an annoying shit. It's not even your wacky left of left of left politics. Can you just for once try a different approach instead of cutting and pasting what other people say and then offering your pithy, bitchy, moral-equivalence one-liners?"

No, not as long as America remains the number one terrorist state in history.

-D.Z.

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

Walter: I dunno. Can you actually find fault with Bush?

comment #15

Walter Sobchak says ...

Why no, D.Z. As you or anyone who follows this site knows, I am a Bush LOVER. I love him SO much. He's like, the greatest ever! I have a shrine to him in my home just above my shrines to O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Cheney and Rush, because I love them so much as well.

It's simple, really, and applies to anyone. If you don't think that Bush is the single worst human being who ever stomped on babies with a steel-toed boot, then you are, naturally, a Bush Lover.

And he doesn't have a SINGLE fault, either!

comment #16

D.Z. says ...

Lover, apologist, what's the difference?

comment #17

Mgmax says ...

I would never have a shrine to Coulter. Well, not since the restraining order.

Yeah, I just don't see the big panic here. Do you think we don't have bases within a reasonable flying distance of the middle east? (It's nobody business but the Turks...) We have bases all over the place. We have one in Cuba, as you may have heard. We've been in Guam since the 19th century. We'll be in the middle east somewhere whether or not we're in Iraq, though recognize, a lot of these people clamoring for us to leave are only doing so because they know we won't, much like the "No Nukes" protesters in West Germany in the 80s.

comment #18

Walter Sobchak says ...

D.Z., you silly little dipshit, answer me this... how do you know Bush used cocaine in college?

Seriously, how do you know? I'm not saying he didn't, but how is it that you KNOW? How? Answer that question. And don't answer it a la D.Z. with another question.

(i.e. "How do I know?, how do we know Iran has nukes?")

comment #19

SpinDozer says ...

'Agreements are made to be changed.'

So it would seem. Doubt if you could find many that have been. This may be due to the political clout of the M-I complex.

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: And how many people actually like us having bases on their turf?

Walter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy

comment #21

Walter Sobchak says ...

Well.

Hearsay, sketchy recollections, rumors and vague speculations assembled onto a Wikipedia page..... that's all I need.

Guilty!

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

"Hearsay, sketchy recollections, rumors and vague speculations assembled onto a Wikipedia page..... that's all I need."

It's more reliable than McCarthy and Ken Starr...

comment #23

bb says ...

It's my understanding that Obama's schedule on inauguration day is something like:

9 am swear in as President,
10 am Allow congressional members to kiss hand,
11:30 introduce new tradition of walking across the Potomac... on the water,
1 pm Create Peace in the Middle East,
1:05 pm solve other world problems
1:30 begin strategy sessions on anticipating future problems.
Sunday: rest.

So why is anybody worrying about Bush conspiracies?

comment #24

Mgmax says ...

"Mgmax: And how many people actually like us having bases on their turf?"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02EEDB173EF931A1575BC0A9629C8B63

comment #25

D.Z. says ...

One town doesn't really impress me, man.

comment #26

Redmond says ...

And Walter Sobchak demonstrates the final resort of Republican assclowns: Small-cocked Machismo. Yes, I just cited the secret of all Right-wingers: Tiny dicks. I'm going to use that every time a liberal is called an effete homosexual. Seems fair.

D.Z., love your comments. (Jeff, should put you on the payroll, IMO) You cite logic and then others like Walter simply lose their mind when faced with the fact that there exists a reality beyond their spoon-fed conservative rhetoric.

comment #27

Mgmax says ...

1) Use of term "assclown": check
2) Penile invective: check
3) Projection of homophobia: check
4) Use of term "Sheeple": not quite, but underlying concept present

You forgot to mention Limbaugh, O'Reilly or Coulter.

comment #28

Mr. Buckles says ...

In general, why do we need to have military bases all over the place - like say Germany? Glad we are closing them - trim that fat, bloated beast that is the defense budget which can't be justified ($1 trillion dollars when all is said and done).

Why do I care if our bases there sadden a German town b/c our troops act as tourists to boost their economy?

Kids, play nice. You are acting like haughty brats. Think a little less of your views and listen a little more.

comment #29

bents75 says ...

"In general, why do we need to have military bases all over the place - like say Germany?"

Walter, allow me to answer Mr. Buckles question for you.

Well, Mr. Buckles, I believe it's because of a simple US strategy called, Balls in your Face!

We look for someone's face, we pull out our balls, and we place our balls in front of said face.

Then we usually wag them around a little bit so it's abundantly clear just how big they really are. Sometimes the other parties like to say, "Well, we have big balls too, ya know?"

But we just laugh at that, because no one would have bigger balls than us. That's just silly. I mean, look at them, they're right in your face. They're right in everyone's face.

That concludes this lesson in current American foreign policy.

comment #30

Mr. Buckles says ...

I have always been against tea bagging as a cornerstone of foreign policy.

comment #31

Walter Sobchak says ...

"And Walter Sobchak demonstrates the final resort of Republican assclowns: Small-cocked Machismo. Yes, I just cited the secret of all Right-wingers: Tiny dicks. I'm going to use that every time a liberal is called an effete homosexual. Seems fair.

D.Z., love your comments. (Jeff, should put you on the payroll, IMO) You cite logic and then others like Walter simply lose their mind when faced with the fact that there exists a reality beyond their spoon-fed conservative rhetoric."

Like the way Reagan spoon-fed death to innocent women and children on a daily basis in the '80's?

comment #32

Walter Sobchak says ...

"Walter, allow me to answer Mr. Buckles question for you.

Well, Mr. Buckles, I believe it's because of a simple US strategy called, Balls in your Face!

We look for someone's face, we pull out our balls, and we place our balls in front of said face.

Then we usually wag them around a little bit so it's abundantly clear just how big they really are. Sometimes the other parties like to say, "Well, we have big balls too, ya know?"

But we just laugh at that, because no one would have bigger balls than us. That's just silly. I mean, look at them, they're right in your face. They're right in everyone's face.

That concludes this lesson in current American foreign policy."

http://www.sugarbushsquirrel.com/

comment #33

Mr. Buckles says ...

http://www.labradorice.com/fatmouse/

comment #34

Mgmax says ...

If we didn't have bases in Germany how would we operate the bombing raids that kill millions of Iraqis? They'd have to fly from the US, trailing depleted uranium all over the Chilean sea bass in the Atlantic.

comment #35

bents75 says ...

Chilean Sea Bass are mostly in the Pacific, or at least Southern Atlantic, and being "over-fished" just like everything else, they're on the verge of being 'endangered' anyway. So I don't think we have to worry about that.

Besides Mgmax, killing millions of Iraqis via bombing is so three or four years ago in terms of liberal rhetoric. What's done is done.

We're now much more interested in the thousands wantonly killed by the mercenary army our government 'over' pays.

comment #36

Mgmax says ...

I'm glad you've moved onto a new transparently impossible accusation of atrocity against your country.

comment #37

Mgmax says ...

Halibut-- Halliburton-- COINCIDENCE?

comment #38

D.Z. says ...

From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

"The nation's unemployment rate jumped to 5.5 percent in May — the biggest monthly rise since 1986 — as nervous employers cut 49,000 jobs.

"The latest snapshot of business conditions showed a deeply troubled economy, with dwindling job opportunities in a time of continuing hardship in the housing, credit and financial sectors."

I wonder how Mgmax is going to spin this one.

comment #39

George Prager says ...

John McCain really loves this Chairman Mao quote, doesn't he?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/04/ino.01.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYJ15vbo15w

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/mccain_quotes_chairman_mao_and.html

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=91726&title=sen.-john-mccain

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-1030mccainoct30,1,5831671.storyv

Hmmmm.

comment #40

SaveFarris says ...

That's what happen when you jack up the minimum wage by 14%.

comment #41

SpinDozer says ...

today's follow-up:

"The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-issues-threat-to-iraqs-50bn-foreign-reserves-in-military-deal-841407.html

comment #42

dangovich says ...

Amazing to find people still clinging to the idea that the Iraq War Was and Is Right and Just. You're like a guy standing on the prow of the Titanic just before it slips beneath the waves, yelliing, "keep bailing, we can save this ship!"

I know it's hard to deny reality sometimes, especially when you've staked you're reputation on an unmitigated disaster, but seriously, it's over. The war and occupation was based on lies and is a corrupt, money-bleeding clusterfuck. Let it go. Move on to something like capital gains taxes, where at least you have some ground to stand on.

comment #43

Mgmax says ...

Whatever, man.

"What do you think of the French Revolution?"

"It is too early to tell." --Chou En-Lai

comment #44

Mgmax says ...

"I wonder how Mgmax is going to spin this one."

Oh, the sky is falling, a Republican is in office and an election is coming, the sky must be falling...

5.5%. That's lower than the entire period of 12/01 to 6/04; lower than all but a few months of Clinton's first term; lower than the entire terms of both Ford and Carter, and all but the last year of Reagan's two terms.

The sky is falling!

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

comment #45

D.Z. says ...

Farris: "That's what happen when you jack up the minimum wage by 14%."

You mean when you jack up oil and food prices by 50%.

Mgmax: "Oh, the sky is falling, a Republican is in office and an election is coming, the sky must be falling..."

Yep. They're a messy bunch.

"5.5%. That's lower than the entire period of 12/01 to 6/04; lower than all but a few months of Clinton's first term; "

Coincidentally, Clinton's term came after Bush I, which was also during a recession.

"lower than the entire terms of both Ford and Carter, and all but the last year of Reagan's two terms."

Prices are higher than during those years, though. And we had more oil to boot...