Sunday, June 8, 2008


GARY LEUPP, COUNTERPUNCH Dick Cheney wants the Iraqi government installed by the U.S. occupation to sign a “security pact” with Washington by the end of July. (The pact, including a status-of-forces agreement, would be signed by the U.S. president but not constitute a treaty requiring Congressional approval.) U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker has been feverishly struggling to meet the deadline and to commit the next administration to the agreement’s terms. But that may be a tall order. Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki says negotiations are only in a beginning stage; public opinion is opposed to the pact based on leaked information about its content; and a majority of members of the Iraqi parliament have endorsed a letter to the U.S. government demanding U.S. withdrawal as the condition for “any commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States.”

Few Americans are familiar with the proposed treaty. If they were, they might be shocked at its provisions, ashamed about its naked sadism. It:

grants the U.S. long-term rights to maintain over 50 military bases in their California-sized country

allows the U.S. to strike any other country from within Iraqi territory without the permission of the Iraqi government

allows the U.S. to conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting with the local government

allows U.S. forces to arrest any Iraqi without consulting with Iraqi authorities

extends to U.S. troops and contractors immunity from Iraqi law

gives U.S. forces control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft.

places the Iraqi Defense, Interior and National Security ministries, under American supervision for ten years

gives the U.S. responsibility for Iraqi armament contracts for ten years

Humiliating, right? The sort of conditions most Americans can’t imagine themselves accepting from a foreign occupying power.. . .

Iranian political leader Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani hardly exaggerates in saying the proposed deal is designed “to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans” and to create “a permanent occupation.” Many Iraqis use similar language. “The agreement wants to put an American in each house,” claimed a supporter of Shiite cleric and nationalist firebrand Mutada al-Sadr. “This agreement is poison mixed in poison, not poison in honey because there is no honey at all.” “Why,” he asks, “do they want to break the backbone of Iraq?” . . .


At June 8, 2008 8:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

places the Iraqi Defense, Interior and National Security ministries, under American supervision for ten years

So when the U.S. and/or Israel starts a war with Iran, the Iraqi military will be deployed against Iran as U.S. surrogates. What a sleazy way to escalate WWIV.

At June 8, 2008 10:09 PM, Anonymous robbie said...

allows the U.S. to strike any other country from within Iraqi territory without the permission of the Iraqi government

That's the ball game, ladies and gentlemen. This is the entire reason Iraq was so important to Bush and the neocons. If Democrats were too stupid to see this in 2002, then they sure as hell don't deserve any support. Unless, of course, they were in on it, in which case everyone from the President on down should be hung.

At June 9, 2008 1:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Alternative News" seems to be an accurate description. Can't believe anyone would actually take this seiously, except maybe pathetic liberal sycophants.

At June 9, 2008 6:57 PM, Anonymous speaking of presidential members said...

Amusing anecdote from Shawn Macomber’s interview with Gene Healy over at The American Spectator:

TAS: I learned so much reading The Cult of the Presidency, which seeds a very good history of the office with a slew of beautiful, strange and at times frightening anecdotes — a humble President Cleveland answering the White House phone personally, LBJ having a hydraulic throne installed in Air Force One “he could raise or lower to achieve the appropriate level of intimacy or intimidation,” the various uses and misuses of the CIA and FBI. Were there any stories or factoids that particularly shocked you during your research?

Gene Healy: The anecdotes I prefer are the polar opposite of the Wise, Compassionate Leader parables you often hear on Sunday morning talk shows. I prefer stories like the one (from Robert Dallek’s biography of LBJ, Flawed Giant), where in a private oval office meeting in 1967, asked by a reporter why America was in Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson unzipped his fly, wagged the presidential member at his audience, and exclaimed “This is why!” I find that little story hilarious, horrifying, and, er, revealing: The president as Great Ape atop the world’s most important primate hierarchy. It tells you something about how the office magnifies the personality flaws of the bizarre people who are willing to do what it takes to get there, with the result that you too often end up governed by a Narcissist with Nukes


Post a Comment

<< Home