It looks like Muktada al Sadr is going to fight against this agreement, so that probably leads to yet more delay on any approval before Jan. 20, 2009. Given the considerable back-track that the Bushies have made in the face of Iraqi failure to submit to Bush, I wonder what is left to be in this for Bush/GOP to want to back. And the certain grief that Maliki faces doesn’t seem to worth pushing hard for a pre-Jan. 20th agreement. No party (including the UN Sec. Council) can get very aroused if their is no agreement for a month or two.

What seems to me to crucial to this is the Obama unknown. If he says (soon) that he supports the current draft, both Bush and Maliki have a chance to push this through. But if Obama is silent, or speaks against (particularly if he says he intends to renegotiate this), then this agreement has nothing in it that makes Maliki want to push hard on his end. If Obama is silent, then it has his implicit buy-in, and maybe Bush/Maliki can sign something.

I guess I’m saying that Obama holds the key to a SoF agreement being signed in the short term. Obama will of course not speak to this before the election (or until any post-election issues about his election are settled). Let’s say that makes Nov. 30th the earliest that Obama speaks. What good is an agreement that has only 2 months life if Obama says ‘wait a moment’ or ‘no’. This doesn’t create the Bush history that Bushies probably want, in fact it makes them look stupid losers for moving ahead on a doomed piece of paper. Bush may want to use that paper on his raw behind after being spanked by those Iraqis that he thought he owned.

Juan Cole explains that the whole thing was a diversion to keep everybody occupied while they looted the treasury

http://www.juancole.com/2008/1…..comes.html

I’m sure the in your face timeline/deadline loss will be eased by diverting the money to other pals in finance. The chimp is the anti-Robin Hood.

These ‘things’ that the Republicans predicted were and still are ‘believed’ by people with something to gain from them or the severely mentally retarded.

Powell endorses Obama

Thanks, excellent article.

Thanks indeed. It’s a keeper.

Iraqis can prosecute U.S. troops in Iraqi courts (!) for “serious or premeditated felonies committed outside their official duties” — I guess that means recreational murder or something, which to my knowledge hasn’t happened — and the Iraqis will have “primary” jurisdiction over U.S. contractors.

* Iraqis can prosecute U.S. troops in Iraqi courts (!)
Why the exclamation mark? If Iraki justice is good enough for us it’s good enough for Americans while they’re in our country.

* “serious or premeditated felonies committed outside their official duties” — I guess that means recreational murder or something,

Yes that is exactly what it means.

* which to my knowledge hasn’t happened

Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi was 14 years old when she told her parents she was terrified by the way the American soldiers at the checkpoint looked at, and spoke to her. Subsequently:

1. Herfather Qasim Hamza Raheem’s head was “smashed” by bullets;
2. Her mother Fakhriyah Taha Muhsin died of gunshot wounds to her head.
3. Her seven year old younger sister Hadeel Qasim Hamza was shot dead.
4. She saw and heard all of that. Then Abeer Qasim Hamza was first raped then shot and her body burned

Hasn’t happened? Your own army has admitted that that was what was done to that child and her family. You will find that Irakis have neither forgotten nor forgiven that it has happened.

As to your mercenaries. They are simply armed civilians in our country without invitation to make as much money as they can by behaving barbarically. They are subject to our law get used to it.

On the troops being prosecuted by Iraq my understanding is that IF they exceed their ROE-Rules of Engagement-(which would be outside their official duties)(like the 7 marines did when they killed several civ Iraqis while on patrol, but exceeding their ROE) then Iraq can prosecute them, the wording can be-and is-made to look as if it would only mean if they were actually off duty when they committ a crime, but the actual document does not, I believe, say exactly that.
It looks to me as if Bush is throwing McCain under the bus. He has totally shifted his position from no timeline ever to a timeline(even tho the bushies are dressing it up, it is in fact a timeline)

What is seemingly never discussed is that the US destroyed Iraq, raping and pillaging. I don’t care if we say over and over that no child was raped, no family destroyed the fact remains that we destroyed that country and created a crisis in the MidEast with at least a million refugees. We built an obsene city there that we call an embassy.
What I don’t understand, cannot understand is why we continue to discuss this as if we were attacked by Iraq and had to defend ourselves. We should all be crawling on our knees begging forgiveness and creating a Marshall plan for Iraq. This attack is a despicable as anything the Nazis created. I mean our need for oil is more important than a child’s life? Really? Our need for oil is more important than Iraq? Really??

What is seemingly never discussed is that the US destroyed Iraq, raping and pillaging.

The reason being, that’s horseshit. In fact, it’s more than horseshit, it’s a disgusting misrepresentation. Why don’t you tell us about the US campaign of rape and pillaging in Iraq in a post that uses the names “Sudan” and “Congo” as reference points. Yes, that’s why not.

This attack is a despicable as anything the Nazis created.

Fantastic. I guess we’ll be short on reasoning for this claim also.

I mean our need for oil is more important than a child’s life? Really? Our need for oil is more important than Iraq? Really??

Of course it is. What DO they teach in US schools nowdays. If you know your need for cheaper banana prices is enough to fill mass graves, why would oil come up as a maybe ?