Corner turned in Iraq?

[MJZiggy]

I NEVER said seniors were against the farm bill. I said that if McCain thinks he can require them to pay for their own prescriptions, he's dead in the water.

[texaspackerbacker]

I NEVER said seniors were against the farm bill. I said that if McCain thinks he can require them to pay for their own prescriptions, he's dead in the water.

Have I missed some statement by McCain that he wants Bush's prescription program for seniors to be terminated?

Actually, by some standards, I'm a senior--age 61. I don't have any insurance--I had my wife take me off her medical coverage to cut the premium from $109 down to $35 every two weeks. Actually, I could drive 25 miles to the VA Hospital, wait in line several hours, and get an $8 co-pay for my two blood pressure prescriptions. Instead, though, I go to Wal Mart, wait in a shorter line, and get a month worth of each prescription for $4. ANYBODY can partake of the Wal Mart Plan--no premium or anything like that, and a very large and ever-increasing number of meds are included in the plan.

So who needs prescription coverage anyway?

[MJZiggy]

My dad's latest prescription is $135 a month at Wal-Mart...

[bobblehead]

She was referring to my post of this:

Just last night I heard John McCain say that seniors who can afford their own prescription drugs should be expected to pay for them....I never heard that in the original plan. So now the little old lady who worked hard and saved money until she was 65 so she could enjoy retirement is going to have to pay for drugs that the person who pissed their money away will get for free....yea, thats moral and just.

He is advocating means testing, now that they got their little socialist plan in place. Her first sentence was in response to the pork bill, the second in response to that.

[Freak Out]

are you laughing at the article you posted, some previous clowns, or just a luntatic outburst? I guess B but I don't want to read a thread about economics.

Iraqi PM assures Iran on security

Iraq will not allow its territory to be used to attack Iran, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has said during a visit to Tehran.

Mr Maliki met the foreign minister and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who pledged to help with Iraq's security.

This sounds like a good deal. Maybe recent success in Basra and elsewhere is because Iran is already backing off trouble making.

Does Malaki actually believe he could stop the USA from attacking Iran from Iraqi soil if he wanted to? Ha ha...it's politics pure and simple. He can't get the USA to stop killing his own citizens let alone someone else's.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Does Malaki actually believe he could stop the USA from attacking Iran from Iraqi soil if he wanted to? Ha ha...it's politics pure and simple. He can't get the USA to stop killing his own citizens let alone someone else's.

You are being short-sighted. Iraq is going to be a truly independent country in a few years, U.S bases or not.

The United States has bases in Turkey. Turkey refused to allow the U.S. to use its ports or territory in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. WE ARE NOT AN IMPERIALIST POWER IN THE MIDDLE EAST. The War in Iraq has demonstrated the real limits of our power. We never controlled Saudi Arabia when we had bases there.

There's a big political fight going on in Iraq right now over the Iraqi-U.S. negotiations over a future U.S. presence. THAT IS A GOOD & HEALTHY SIGN! There is genuine democracy at work. One of Maliki's allies, the last prime minister of Iraq, Jalawi or whatever is name is, was kicked out of the party yesterday over his organizing against the negotiations He's forming a new Shitte political party opposed to U.S. bases. And of course Sadir's people have been protesting.

If the U.S. maintains bases in Iraq, it will be because a majority of the Iraqi people want them. And a political opposition that expresses itself is more likely to respect any agreement. The Iraqi elections scheduled for next October are perfectly timed. Although they are provincial elections, support of future U.S. bases is a central issue.

BTW, I think it is outrageous that Bush is pursuing this negotiation in the final months of his term. And he refuses to seek congressional approval of the agreement. Terrible. Obviously this is a long term commitment that shouldn't be made by a lame duck.

[texaspackerbacker]

Does Malaki actually believe he could stop the USA from attacking Iran from Iraqi soil if he wanted to? Ha ha...it's politics pure and simple. He can't get the USA to stop killing his own citizens let alone someone else's.

You are being short-sighted. Iraq is going to be a truly independent country in a few years, U.S bases or not.

The United States has bases in Turkey. Turkey refused to allow the U.S. to use its ports or territory in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. WE ARE NOT AN IMPERIALIST POWER IN THE MIDDLE EAST. The War in Iraq has demonstrated the real limits of our power. We never controlled Saudi Arabia when we had bases there.

There's a big political fight going on in Iraq right now over the Iraqi-U.S. negotiations over a future U.S. presence. THAT IS A GOOD & HEALTHY SIGN! There is genuine democracy at work. One of Maliki's allies, the last prime minister of Iraq, Jalawi or whatever is name is, was kicked out of the party yesterday over his organizing against the negotiations He's forming a new Shitte political party opposed to U.S. bases. And of course Sadir's people have been protesting.

If the U.S. maintains bases in Iraq, it will be because a majority of the Iraqi people want them. And a political opposition that expresses itself is more likely to respect any agreement. The Iraqi elections scheduled for next October are perfectly timed. Although they are provincial elections, support of future U.S. bases is a central issue.

BTW, I think it is outrageous that Bush is pursuing this negotiation in the final months of his term. And he refuses to seek congressional approval of the agreement. Terrible. Obviously this is a long term commitment that shouldn't be made by a lame duck.

That is a very realistic and fair and balanced post, Harlan.

While we easily COULD go against Turkey or Iraq or whoever, we very likely WOULD NOT--unless it was really necessary. As Iraq proved when Turkey got skiddish, there's more than one way to skin a Muslim cat.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia both hate and fear Iran; There is a long and fairly open Afghan/Iran border; And there are several decently cooperative former Soviet republics also bordering Iran. And that's not even mentioning long range aier and naval power, as well as our good and valuable ally, Israel, which just might do the job all by themselves.

[Freak Out]

Does Malaki actually believe he could stop the USA from attacking Iran from Iraqi soil if he wanted to? Ha ha...it's politics pure and simple. He can't get the USA to stop killing his own citizens let alone someone else's.

You are being short-sighted. Iraq is going to be a truly independent country in a few years, U.S bases or not.

The United States has bases in Turkey. Turkey refused to allow the U.S. to use its ports or territory in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. WE ARE NOT AN IMPERIALIST POWER IN THE MIDDLE EAST. The War in Iraq has demonstrated the real limits of our power. We never controlled Saudi Arabia when we had bases there.

There's a big political fight going on in Iraq right now over the Iraqi-U.S. negotiations over a future U.S. presence. THAT IS A GOOD & HEALTHY SIGN! There is genuine democracy at work. One of Maliki's allies, the last prime minister of Iraq, Jalawi or whatever is name is, was kicked out of the party yesterday over his organizing against the negotiations He's forming a new Shitte political party opposed to U.S. bases. And of course Sadir's people have been protesting.

If the U.S. maintains bases in Iraq, it will be because a majority of the Iraqi people want them. And a political opposition that expresses itself is more likely to respect any agreement. The Iraqi elections scheduled for next October are perfectly timed. Although they are provincial elections, support of future U.S. bases is a central issue.

BTW, I think it is outrageous that Bush is pursuing this negotiation in the final months of his term. And he refuses to seek congressional approval of the agreement. Terrible. Obviously this is a long term commitment that shouldn't be made by a lame duck.

Short sighted? I guess I should have emphasized that he is not the one in control of that aspect of his nations sovereignty NOW. In a year or two ...maybe. I completely agree that Dubya damn well better seek Congressional approval. But it sounds like he will not....and by the way...we never invaded Turkey.

[texaspackerbacker]

What we did for Turkey was SAVE THEM from the horrors of Communism during the Cold War. As a result, we ended up with some bases there. In general, Turkey has been a fairly good loyal ally. They got a little bit chicken that Saddam would survive and come after them if they let us launch attacks from their country. I can forgive them for that. Their government was a representative democracy, after all, and had to worry about public opinion.

Fort Hood's own 4th Infantry Division simply got back on their ships and sailed to Kuwait, coming up from the south. The 82d and 101st Airborne handled the north just fine without Turkey's help.

So if Iran needs to be attacked, likely Bush will do what needs to be done and get Congress's blessing after the fact. I suspect the election result may just have something to do with it too. If McCain wins, Bush likely would rely on him to bomb bomb bomb, bomb Iran. If Obama wins, some pre-emption may be in order--Bush's parting gift to America--taking out Iranian nukes. Or maybe Israel will just take care of business themselves.

[Harlan Huckleby]

and by the way...we never invaded Turkey.

I got a lot out of this conversation:

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/06/04/2/a-conversation-with-richard-engel-of-nbc-news

I take by your remark that there is much ill-will towards the U.S. in Iraq.

The reporter in the above converstion generalized Iraqi feelings this way: Most Iraqis greeted the American invasion with great joy. He claims that a large majority of Iraqis, surprisingly including Sunni, held a very positive view of the toppling of Sadam Hussein.

Deep resentment built during the lawless years where criminal gangs and violent militias held sway.

Now feelings are mixed, according to the reporter.

Its possible that the Iraqi people will want us, the infidels, off of Muslim land. But that's not at all clear. And I doubt hard feelings over the war will play any role.

[Freak Out]

U.S. seeking 58 bases in Iraq, Shiite lawmakers say

Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: June 09, 2008 08:20:15 PM

BAGHDAD -Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.

"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."

Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation with two years notice from either side, lawmakers said.

"It would impair Iraqi sovereignty," said Ali al Adeeb a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party of the proposed accord. "The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq... if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help."

Both Saghir and Adeeb said that the Iraqi government rejected the terms as unacceptable. They said the government wants a U.S. presence and a U.S. security guarantee but also wants to control security within the country, stop indefinite detentions of Iraqis by U.S. forces and have a say in U.S. forces' conduct in Iraq.

The 58 bases would represent an expansion of the U.S. presence here. Currently, the United States operates out of about 30 major bases, not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts, according to a U.S. military map.

" Is there sovereignty for Iraq - or isn't there? If it is left to them, they would ask for immunity even for the American dogs," Saghir said. "We have given Bush our views - some new ideas and I find that there is a certain harmony between his thoughts and ours. And he promised to tell the negotiators to change their methods."

Maliki returned Monday from his second visit to Iran, whose Islamic rulers are adamantly opposed to the accord. Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei said following meetings with Maliki that we have "no doubt that the Americans' dreams will not come true."

Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, criticized the lawmakers for poisoning the public discussion before an agreement is concluded. He said U.S. officials had been flexible in the talks, as well as "frank and honest since the beginning."

"This is an ongoing process," Zebari said. "There is no agreement yet. Proposals have been modified, they have been changed and altered. We don't have a final text yet for them to be judgmental."

Zebari, who said a negotiating session was held with U.S. officials on the new accord Monday, said any agreement will be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for approval. Leaders in the U.S. Congress have also demanded a say in the agreement, but the Bush administration says it is planning to make this an executive accord not subject to Senate ratification.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain didn't respond for requests for comment, but the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, said through a spokesman that he believes the Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress and that it should make "absolutely clear" that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said he had not heard of a plan to seek 50 or more bases in Iraq, and that if it is the case, Congress is likely to challenge the idea. "Congress would have a lot of questions, and the president should be very careful in negotiating," Hamilton, who now directs the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, told McClatchy.

The top U.S. Embassy spokesman in Iraq rejected the latest Iraqi criticism.

"Look, there is going to be no occupation," said U.S. spokesman Adam Ereli. "Now it's perfectly understandable that there are those that are following this closely in Iraq who have concerns about what this means for Iraqi sovereignty and independence. We understand that and we appreciate that and that's why nothing is going to be rammed down anybody's throat.

"It's kind of like a forced marriage. It just doesn't work. They either want you or they don't want you. You can't use coercion to get them to like you," he added.

U.S. officials in Baghdad say they are determined to complete the accord by July 31 so that parliamentary deliberations can be completed before the Dec. 31 expiration of the UN mandate.

The agreement will not specify how many troops or where they will be deployed, said a U.S. official who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the subject, but the agreement will detail the legal framework under which U.S. troops will operate. The U.S. official said that in the absence of a UN resolution authorizing the use of force, "there have to be terms that are in place. That's the reality that we're trying to accommodate."

Iraqis are determined to get their nation removed from the purview of the U.N. Security Council under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows the international body to declare a country a threat to international peace, a step the U.N. took after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Iraqi officials say that designation clearly is no longer appropriate.

But even on that basic request, the U.S. has not promised to support Iraq, Saghir said, and is insteadn withholding that support as a pressure point in negotiations.

U.S. demands "conflict with our sovereignty and we refuse them," said Hassan Sneid, a member of the Dawa party and a lawmaker on the security committee in the parliament. "I don't expect these negotiations will be done by the exact date. The Americans want so many things and the fact is we want different things."

"If we had to choose one or the other, an extension of the mandate or this agreement, we would probably choose the extension," Saghir said. "It is possible that in December we will send a letter the UN informing them that Iraq no longer needs foreign forces to control its internal security. As for external defense, we are still not ready."

Margaret Talev in Washington contributed.

McClatchy Newspapers 2008

[Harlan Huckleby]

Barack Obama, said through a spokesman that he believes the Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress and that it should make "absolutely clear" that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

Why in hell should we take the option of permanent bases off the table?

Permanent bases might very well be in our interest. John McCain has this one exactly right - if we reach a state of peace where our troops are not being attacked, we may wish to keep bases in Iraq permanently. I don't know whether this is likely or possible, but why the fuck would Barack Obama implicitly identify the United States an an unwelcome occupier?

Mr. Obama, how would bases in Iraq be different from our bases in the Arab Gulf States? Do you wish to close those down too? Have you thought this through?

"If we had to choose one or the other, an extension of the mandate or this agreement, we would probably choose the extension," Saghir said.

This guy is very sensible. It makes no sense for either Iraq or the United States to be pushing this agreement so hard right now. Obviously Bush has unwisely chosen to ram it through while he still has some control. If they can just postpone with an extension, that is the best move.

I hope mutual trust grows between Iraq & U.S. There may be a better opportunity to sign such a long-term deal in a couple years.

I like every thing I hear from the Iraqis. It is good that they are standing up as a truly independent country. If they want us to leave, I am TOTALLY cool with that. My guess is we can, in time, find a mutually beneficial agreement on keeping bases there that Iraq finances 100%. Leaving completely also has a lot of appeal. Let it play out.

[oregonpackfan]

The United States would "only" maintain 58 permanent bases in Iraq!? Who cares what the Iraqis want for their own country? It's in our best interest to continually occupy that country for the distant future.

Heck, why not just annex Iraq as America's 51st state?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Oregon, it is clear now that NOTHING will happen without the support of the Iraqi people.

You are speaking in bumper sticker language, and very outdated language at that. There are exciting, encouraging things happening in Iraq on the poltical front. And it may lead to a U.S. withdrawal. Or not.

[texaspackerbacker]

You know what is really abominable? That this America-hating bastard, Obama, would not even consider the American position and interests here, and would automatically come out AGAINST America. And this is the sick piece of shit that many people including some idiots in this forum want to become president.

I think what will come out of this is a compromise only slightly less than what we are originally stating--with the more responsible elements of Iraqi leadership.

Incidentally, Status of Forces Agreements based on all previous contexts fall way short of treaties, hence requiring no Congressional advice and consent.