Nbadan
06-06-2008, 01:34 PM
Dubya was against permanent bases before he was for permanent bases...
Bush's Secret Iraq Deal
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, June 5, 2008; 12:35 PM
Despite opposition from both the Iraqi and American people, President Bush appears to be forging ahead on a multi-year security agreement with the Iraqi government that would lock in the occupation status quo.
A British newspaper reports new details about the ongoing secret negotiations: Bush wants to retain the use of more than 50 military bases in Iraq and is insisting on immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. troops and contractors, as well as a free hand to carry out military activities without consulting the Baghdad government. The pact, which Bush has said he does not intend to submit for Congressional approval, would take effect shortly before he leaves office. Reversing it, while possible, would force a future president to break an international commitment.
But there are signs of increasing resistance on the Iraqi side. At a congressional hearing yesterday, two members of the Iraqi parliament said Bush's terms would infringe on Iraqi sovereignty and perpetuate the violence there. They said any agreement should include a timetable for a quick departure of U.S. troops.
And in case the stakes weren't already high enough, the agreement is shaping up to be yet another proxy battle with Iran.
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/06/05/BL2008060501746.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
The Coverage:
Patrick Cockburn writes in the Independent: "A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.
From a White House statement dated 2004...
"As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America."
Yeah right....
Bush's Secret Iraq Deal
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, June 5, 2008; 12:35 PM
Despite opposition from both the Iraqi and American people, President Bush appears to be forging ahead on a multi-year security agreement with the Iraqi government that would lock in the occupation status quo.
A British newspaper reports new details about the ongoing secret negotiations: Bush wants to retain the use of more than 50 military bases in Iraq and is insisting on immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. troops and contractors, as well as a free hand to carry out military activities without consulting the Baghdad government. The pact, which Bush has said he does not intend to submit for Congressional approval, would take effect shortly before he leaves office. Reversing it, while possible, would force a future president to break an international commitment.
But there are signs of increasing resistance on the Iraqi side. At a congressional hearing yesterday, two members of the Iraqi parliament said Bush's terms would infringe on Iraqi sovereignty and perpetuate the violence there. They said any agreement should include a timetable for a quick departure of U.S. troops.
And in case the stakes weren't already high enough, the agreement is shaping up to be yet another proxy battle with Iran.
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/06/05/BL2008060501746.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
The Coverage:
Patrick Cockburn writes in the Independent: "A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.
From a White House statement dated 2004...
"As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America."
Yeah right....