Death Blow to the Empire

The Bushco plan for Iraq….permanent bases to achieve and enforce energy hegemony in the Middle East, just failed. For some unfathomable reason, the Iraqis don’t seem to want America to build 58 bases ad permaently occupy their country.

WAPO:

BAGHDAD, June 13 — The Bush administration’s Iraq policy suffered two major setbacks Friday when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki publicly rejected key U.S. terms for an ongoing military presence and anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called for a new militia offensive against U.S. forces.

Why do the Iraqis hate America?

Oh yeah, we invaded ad occupied their country by lyig to the world and for no discernible reason except Neo-con dreams of empire…..and have been killing them for six years or so….with various war crimes like torture and using chemical weapons…WMD… on civilians thrown in for Public Relations purposes.

The Surge has only “worked” for one reason….a truce with Sadr. That is over now.

Every faction not currently holding US granted power right now wants the Yankees to go home. Bush/McCain cannot afford to “surrender” and their obvious and fatal incompetence at diplomacy has just reached the high water mark in trying to force the Iraqi people to accept permanent occupation, which has now been forcefully rejected. If Sadr keeps his word, Iraq is about to get very ugly.

If Sadr aligns with all of the other factions that want America gone….and mounts a real offensive backed by the Iraqi people…..well….140,000m troops and a broken military aren’t going to cut it. Bush/McCain will be forced to react, the only question is how. They have no more cards to play, and they are in the middle of a election where they are forced to pretend that all is well. When it isn’t. George Bush’s dreams of empire are about to crumble in the face of a people he has woefully oppressed and abused, and has now found the only possible way of uniting…..mobilizing them to kill Americans.

Heckuva job, Georgie.

24 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. Photobucket

    And….

    Here’s dday on our OTHER disastrous war

    • robodd on June 14, 2008 at 21:28

    for some high level, sophisticated diplomacy.

    Maybe Obama could send al-Maliki and al-Sadr a brief note saying, ‘scuse me, uh, could you guys just hold up a couple of months?

    • Mu on June 14, 2008 at 21:38

    From Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis against Americans, to moderate and conservative Iranians, to “Old Europe”, to the Democratic Party (except for some de-facto Republicans who have their heads planted firmly up their asses), this guy knows how to unite!

    Mu . . .

    • Edger on June 14, 2008 at 21:46

    Isn’t he?

    How in the hell are you going to run a proper war of terror without you do yer goddamndest to create terrists, anyway?

    What don’t the suckers get???

  2. The paychecks better not be late.

    As I understand it, over 10,000 (mostly Sunni) get paid so much a day, to Not Kill US forces.

    Imagine only $10.00 a day.

    That`s $100,000.00 a day or $3,000,000.00 a month.

    At $36,000,000.00 a year that`s one hell of a protection racket.

    Funny though, the protection only applies, as long as the check clears.

    No wonder they power-up the electric grid so sporadically.

    They wouldn`t want all the shit to hit all the fans at once.

    • Viet71 on June 14, 2008 at 22:29

    which is the question of many, is, what is Obama going to do about Iraq?

    If I were advising him, I’d say, pull all the troops (ALL the troops) out immediately.  Anything less is to maintain an illegal occupation.  Obama is a Harvard-trained lawyer.  He’d get that.

  3. is important to seeing how paragraph 1 is hype.

    Salah al-Obaidi, Sadr’s chief spokesman, said the order was essentially a full-scale reorganization of the Mahdi Army, transforming it from a militia into a permanent peaceful organization with a small armed wing of several hundred or so members. He said the cease-fire for the rest of the movement would remain in force.

    Sadr isn’t going to launch an offensive against the US with “several hundred or so” guys.  The point of the announcement looks much more like it is to solidify his movement’s peace credentials.  Especially as the provincial elections are coming up.

    My own interpretation of what’s going on right now, for what it’s worth, is that we are watching a really remarkable attempt at non-violent resistance to the SOFA by the Iraqi people and their parliament.  They have forced major concessions from Bush and Maliki (concessions which may in the end amount to nothing, but that’s always true) and are demanding more.

    The parliament is not backing down.  In the MSM, we read that the parliament is “putting on a show of objecting to Bush” in order to get re-elected in the provincial elections this Fall.  We hear from Bush that the parliament is ineffectual “noise.”  

    What we are not hearing is that the Iraqi refusal of SOFA is an inspiring and humbling display of the power of democratic resitance to power.  But that’s what it is.

  4. …..”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. . . .

    All I can say is that I hope that the Iraqis stick to their guns on this.  The attempt by BushCo has not only been to take over and, basically, control the oil and to whom and where it goes, but to take over the control of the country, generally!  That was their (U.S.) intent and still is their intent!

    And, yes, the Afghanistanis have almost been forgotten in the process, as things worsen by the day.  The pledges of donors of other nations to rebuild their nation, including our own, have lagged far behind, and their impoverishment has increased!

    Thanks, Buhdy — you’re right on top there!

    Isn’t it great to know the pergatory our government has created?  

    Isn’t it greater yet to know that our Constitution is meaningless?  That no amount of appeal to the supposed “strongest” of our legislatures will bring about the necessary action to bring these barren, criminal souls to the fore with appropriate investigations of impeachment?

    • kj on June 15, 2008 at 16:49

    great comments.  thanks.

  5. to the empire but I have a difficult time of convincing myself that the empire will back down so easily. Iraq has been in neocon crosshairs for a long time and plenty of folks with power and influence are still on board with the goal of “bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East”.

    Maybe they’ll have to settle for just buying Iraq’s oil rather than owning it and the satisfaction of knowing they helped enrich many of their cronies to the tune of $500 billion or so.

Comments have been disabled.