"Remember, as far as anyone knows, we're a nice normal family." - Homer Simpson

Street Signs





Street Traffic


Campaign Analysts

Media Sources

Multimedia Powers

Progressive Sources

Debate Forums

Blog Compilers

Search Tools



Street Regulars

Regarding Members
Of Our Team Effort


Current members are listed above. But many contributed before, some now blogging giants and some who blog no more.

Asterisks* throughout the sidebars denote the full roster of our talented team, past and present.

In the category below are those whose blogs are defunct, or blog extremely rarely, or who never had their own blog at all.

But it is a partial list, as all other past members are categorized by region, topic or both, elsewhere in these sidebars.

Previous Members

Community Blogs

NY-DC Power Corridor

Northeast Patriots

Middle Movers

Western Pioneers

Southern Progress

Election Specialists

Mass Media News And Critique

Technical & Design For Our Website

Geo Visitors Map

Side Streets




Donate via PayPal
Your support keeps us
going and we thank you
for your generosity.

******************

A Liberal Network


The Economy

Today's Bush Tax


Energy Sense

The Middle East

Global Outlook

Foe Fighters

Wits & Giggles

Legal Experts

Human Equality

Cultural Literacy

Left, Actually

Science & Health

Environmentalists

Educating Well

Belief & Philosophy




April 8, 2008

Bush tries to commit the US to an open-ended Iraq commitment

The secret agreement may not survive an Iraq government vote, but now it’s officially outed. And what underlies this effort doesn’t bode well for McNasty:

A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.

The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked “secret” and “sensitive”, is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to “conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security” without time limit.

The authorisation is described as “temporary” and the agreement says the US “does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq”. But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces - including the British - in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.

Iraqi critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of US forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or powers over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term US security agreements with other countries. The agreement is intended to govern the status of the US military and other members of the multinational force.

Following recent clashes between Iraqi troops and Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army in Basra, and threats by the Iraqi government to ban his supporters from regional elections in the autumn, anti-occupation Sadrists and Sunni parties are expected to mount strong opposition in parliament to the agreement, which the US wants to see finalised by the end of July. The UN mandate expires at the end of the year.

He’s made it near impossible for the next Prez to launch any new domestic initiatives in the next three years. He’s trying to tie their hands in foreign policy, too, so certain he is that JOHN MCCAIN IS GOING TO LOSE.

4 Responses to “Bush tries to commit the US to an open-ended Iraq commitment”

  1. Temporary In Every Way But Definition | Comments from Left Field Says:

    […] Kevin Hayden believes this is all a show of Bush’s lack of confidence that McCain will win the White House; essentially the president is attempting to tie the hands of whomever will replace him into maintaining a neverending presence in Iraq.  Since McCain’s not only already on board, but also likely to try to go to war with Iran for funsies, I’m guessing there would be no reason to lay the groundwork for a permanent presence in Iraq if he was a shoe in for the presidency. […]

  2. (: Tom :) Says:

    He’s made it near impossible for the next Prez to launch any new domestic initiatives in the next three years. He’s trying to tie their hands in foreign policy, too, so certain he is that JOHN MCCAIN IS GOING TO LOSE.

    Just wondering: why can’t the next president simply negate any agreements that the Putsch cabal has made? The Republican’ts broke quite a few agreements that were negotiated by the previous (Democratic) administration, including Kyoto and membership in the International Criminal Court. So there’s precedent for refusing to honor commitments from previous administrations.

  3. wilson Says:

    They’re all on the same team. They just play the good cop / bad cop routine with us, ad nauseum. If any of our politicians wanted the war to end they wouldn’t be investing in companies associated with the War as a recent report confirmed. There are profits to be made! Obama, Clinton, or McCain … I assure you nothing will change. War is big business. We export the most arms in the world and we are involved in the most conflicts and Israel is in second place right behind us. Strange that we give Israel tremendous amounts of taxpayer money with no questions asked. War isn’t going away anytime soon. If it wasn’t Iraq, it would be somewhere else. Whether legitimate or made up. Honestly, let’s imagine the US owned/controlled every nation, do you think the Military Industrial Complex would just go away? Nope. They’d just make up some new wars with new propaganda against whomever just to test and/or keep the MIC going. Being fooled by the