Iraqi PM says US should leave as soon as possible

Bush rules

Time to gather all our toys together, thank everybody who helped make things happen, put all disparaging thoughts behind us, have a good laugh about all the good times, and move along to Tehran.

I wonder if anyone will even read the article. Whoever wrote the summary is surely expecting that most will not.

Yeah make the US leave so they can sell our oil to China to pay for Busheez war bill.

I read the article.

Der Spiegel might have misquoted the Obama part; time will tell. But this much we know:

Maliki wants a timeline for withdrawal, same as Obama.

The Bush White House is now talking a timeline for withdrawal, same as Obama.

It's only a matter of time before McCain goes, "Me too, if Bush wants it".

And Obama's the guy who supposedly lacks foreign policy cred???

Obama. Right from the start!

strut2k wrote:

I read the article.
Der Spiegel might have misquoted the Obama part; time will tell. But this much we know:
Maliki wants a timeline for withdrawal, same as Obama.
The Bush White House is now talking a timeline for withdrawal, same as Obama.
It's only a matter of time before McCain goes, "Me too, if Bush wants it".
And Obama's the guy who supposedly lacks foreign policy cred???
Obama. Right from the start!

A bit of oversimplification here, but so goes politics, and the people who play them.

So is McCain going to stay in Iraq even if Iraquis dont want us there? Yes the surge has put a lid on the violence...so does that mean troops will be leaving Iraq? I dont Understand first we cant leave because the situation is unstable now we cant leave because the surge has worked???wtf?

Damn right!! He wants the US out!!!

Too much.. corruption.. failed policies!! and ...
NO legal justification..for being there!!

Too...many innocent lives lost in Iraq!!!

Bush's occupation..and creation of the "Ghost War" killing women and children..will go down as one of the most despicable war crimes in Modern history!!....

Well, the funny thing is that Iraq is going to hell once the US military leaves. I can't blame them for wanting us out, but we're pretty much the bandaid right now.

we should get the hell out but bush should stay there alone you looser

Bush must have threatened them with eviction from the green zone-all that Swiss $ socked away won't be enjoyed by a corpse.

maliki - understand this - the us wants out of iraq and many are sorry that we engaged in that rag-tag sorry state of a country! but we did - and we left a lot of our blood on the ground while you and your cronies stole billions for your own coffers and left the country to wallow in the sand! if you and your cronies would telex the swiss banks and put the money back in iraqui hands and you would lead your fledging country responsibly we americans would be most grateful! if not, i assure you, if you call upon us again we will not respond!!!!!!!!!

If they were over here don't you think we would be trying everything we could to get them out of our country to.

Lance Winslow wrote:

Time to gather all our toys together, thank everybody who helped make things happen, put all disparaging thoughts behind us, have a good laugh about all the good times, and move along to Tehran.

Tehran will first cut the 300,000 barrels of oil per day to the USA. Then you'll face the music with the long range missiles. Get real, 60% of the British troops don't want to fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, why do you think they will help the US out in Iran?

It's about time you wake up from your winter sleep.

What do you think will happen when US got attacked again from the inside like 911?

My feeling tells me, a new strike could be sooner then we all think, according to Murphey's law.

Oil Immunity?
Government denies charges that Bush helped oil companies in Iraq
http://tinyurl.com/2x2cp3
WASHINGTON, October 30, 2003 — On May 22, the U.N. Security Council gathered in New York to approve a resolution lifting sanctions on Iraq, creating a Development Fund for the country and providing limited immunity to corporations involved in oil and gas deals there for the next four years. The resolution directed that proceeds from future sales of Iraqi oil and gas be placed in the development fund and allowed the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority to disburse the funds in consultation with the interim Iraqi administration.
That same day at the White House, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13303, which appears to give immunity from any judicial process to every entity with direct or indirect interests in Iraqi petroleum and related products. "The threat of attachment or judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein ... constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States," reads the executive order. It continues, "… any … judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void."
Executive Order 13303 went unnoticed outside the government until July, when it was spotted by the Institute for Policy Studies, a liberal think tank.
Since then, accusations have been flying over whether or not the Bush administration has given blanket immunity to the oil industry in Iraq. "The Executive Order is a blank check for corporate anarchy," Tom Devine, legal director of the non-profit Government Accountability Project, wrote in a July 2003 assessment of the order for the Institute. "Its sweeping, unqualified language places industry above domestic and international law for anything related to commerce in Iraqi oil."
"Translated from the legalese, this is a license for corporations to loot Iraq and its citizens," Devine added. http://www.public-i.org/wow/report.aspx...
==========
Bush Gives Legal Immunity to Transnational Oil Corporations in Iraq
July 28, 2003 http://tinyurl.com/3cqtoe
During the initial assault on Baghdad, soldiers set up forward bases named Camp Shell and Camp Exxon. Those soldiers knew the score, even if the Pentagon's talking points dismissed any ties between Iraqi oil and their blood.
The Bush/Cheney administration has moved quickly to ensure U.S. corporate control over Iraqi resources, at least through the year 2007. The first part of the plan, created by the United Nations under U.S. pressure, is the Development Fund for Iraq, which is being controlled by the United States and advised by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second is a recent Bush executive order that provides absolute legal protection for U.S. interests in Iraqi oil.
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/oil_c...
EO 13303 / Effective Date: May 28, 2003
http://tinyurl.com/ca3se
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayEO.cfm...
==========

Iraqi leader tells Bush: Get Gen Petraeus out
07/29/2007 http://tinyurl.com/2qxm8c
Relations between the top United States general in Iraq and Nouri al-Maliki, the country's prime minister, are so bad that the Iraqi leader made a direct appeal for his removal to President George W Bush.

Although the call was rejected, aides to both men admit that Mr Maliki and Gen David Petraeus engage in frequent stand-up shouting matches, differing particularly over the US general's moves to arm Sunni tribesmen to fight al-Qa'eda.

One Iraqi source said Mr Maliki used a video conference with Mr Bush to call for the general's signature strategy to be scrapped. "He told Bush that if Petraeus continues, he would arm Shia militias," said the official. "Bush told Maliki to calm down."
At another meeting with Gen Petraeus, Mr Maliki said: "I can't deal with you any more. I will ask for someone else to replace you."

Gen Petraeus admitted that the relationship was stormy, saying: "We have not pulled punches with each other."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;js...

----------

Heat Rises Between Iraq PM and Petraeus
July 28, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2hhjql
BAGHDAD -- A key aide says Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's relations with Gen. David Petraeus are so poor the Iraqi leader may ask Washington to withdraw the overall U.S. commander from his Baghdad post.
Iraq's foreign minister calls the relationship "difficult." Petraeus, who says their ties are "very good," acknowledges expressing his "full range of emotions" at times with al-Maliki. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who meets with both at least weekly, concedes "sometimes there are sporty exchanges."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

----------

Are Petraeus and Westmoreland Birds of a Feather?
by Ray McGovern CIA Ret. http://tinyurl.com/3xj9xf
The killing in Hawijah, Iraq of 18-year old Corporal Jeremy Shank of Jackson, Missouri (population 12,000) merited an article in the Southeast Missourian . Cpl. Shank was killed on Sept. 6, 2006 and I was in that part of Missouri when his body came home for burial. According to the Pentagon, Shank was on a “dismounted security patrol when he encountered enemy forces using small arms.”

Cpl. Shank’s death came two years after President George W. Bush greeted then-Prime Minister Iyad Allawi at the White House, proudly announcing “months of steady progress” toward a free Iraq, despite persistent violence in some parts of the country. His death came two weeks after national security adviser Stephen Hadley acknowledged that the mid-2006 upsurge in violence meant that the new challenge in Iraq “isn’t about insurgency, isn’t about terror; it’s about sectarian violence.” Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki underscored the point,“The most important element in the security plan is to curb the religious violence.”

So what was the mission of Cpl. Shank while on security patrol, and who were the “enemy forces” he encountered? Was his mission to prevent Iraqi religious fanatics from killing each other?

On Sept. 7, 2006, the day after Shank was killed, President Bush in effect mocked Jeremy Shank’s death by drawing the familiar but bogus connection to 9/11:
“Five years after September the 11th, 2001, America is safer-and America is winning the war on terror [and] will leave behind a more peaceful world for our children and our grandchildren.”
Not for children, grandchildren of Jeremy Shank.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/0...

READ MY LIPS:

PETRAEUS & CROCKER TESTIFIED WITHOUT TAKING THE OATH TO SWEAR AND TELL THE TRUTH!

BUSH & CHENEY DID THE SAME AT THE 9/11 COMMISSION INVESTIGATIONS!

THEY DID NOT TESTIFY UNDER OATH!

Fool Me Once, Shame On You, Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me!

----------

General "Betray Us / Lying 3 Years Ago Battling for Iraq
http://tinyurl.com/5d65f By David H. Petraeus September 26, 2004;
BAGHDAD -- Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq's security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight -- and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.
The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles...

aka 47 wrote:

Bush rules

Little King George only thinks he rules, Maliki ask Bush to get out.....lol ya bush the little idiot rules.....if cheney would pull his hand out of the puppets ass Georgie would sh!t all over himself.

Iraq, 1917
http://tinyurl.com/ychyps

They came as liberators but were met by fierce resistance outside Baghdad. Humiliating treatment of prisoners and heavy-handed action in Najaf and Fallujah further alienated the local population. A planned handover of power proved unworkable. Britain's 1917 occupation of Iraq holds uncanny parallels with today - and if we want to know what will happen there next, we need only turn to our history books...
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles403.htm

----------
The Myth of an al Qaeda Takeover of Iraq
http://tinyurl.com/287t4u / January 28, 2007

Despite such scare mongering, it is highly improbable that al Qaeda could use Iraq as the kind of safe haven it enjoyed in Afghanistan. There, the organization had the protection of an entrenched, friendly government, which it will not have in Iraq. Al Qaeda also had a much larger force in Afghanistan -- an estimated 18,000 fighters. Even the U.S. government concedes that there are fewer than 2,000 al Qaeda fighters in Iraq, and the Iraq Study Group put the figure at only 1,300.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php...
----------
YOU WONT HEAR THIS ON ANY AMERICAN MAINSTREAM MEDIA:

READ MY LIPS:

THE IRAQI CITIZENRY WILL NOT FIGHT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF OIL.......PERIOD........