Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Bush Eyeing Iraq Truce With Congress?" (here's a plan let's divide up Iraq)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 10:29 AM
Original message
"Bush Eyeing Iraq Truce With Congress?" (here's a plan let's divide up Iraq)
Edited on Mon Jun-25-07 10:31 AM by ProSense

Bush Eyeing Iraq Truce With Congress?

The Skinny: L.A. Times Says White House Mulling Compromise Offer On Iraq War Policy

The Los Angeles Times tops its front page Monday with a report that the Bush administration is looking into offering Congress a compromise deal on Iraq, in a bid to avoid a continued political battle over the unpopular war.

The Times says President Bush has authorized an internal policy review to come up with a plan that satisfies war opponents while allowing President Bush to hold onto some of his top goals for Iraq.

Senior administration officials have been "quietly talking with lawmakers" about possible changes in U.S. policy, including pushing for "a sharply decentralized" Iraqi government.

But while a deal with Congress could save the White House from "refighting the issue every few months," the Times says "the odds of a compromise are long."

<...>

Cheney Under The Microscope

The Washington Post continues its series on Dick Cheney, "the most influential and powerful man ever to hold the office of vice president," with a look at how he shaped the administration's controversial policy on interrogating accused terrorists.

The Post says that as early as January 2002, "well before previous accounts have suggested," Cheney and his allies began pushing for exceptions to the Geneva Conventions, to allow a "novel distinction" between the banned use of "torture," and the permitted use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" interrogation techniques.

more


From the Los Angeles Times:

The White House has opposed proposals in Congress to partition Iraq, or sharply decentralize its government.

That idea — what proponents of decentralization call a "federal system of government" — is favored by an unusually broad bipartisan group of senators. They were pulled together this month by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), a presidential candidate, to cosponsor a nonbinding resolution supporting the federalism plan.

And the administration stance may be easing. On a trip to Iraq about a week ago, Gates openly reflected that greater emphasis outside Baghdad might prove more effective. "Perhaps we have gotten too focused on the central government, and not enough on the provinces and on the tribes and what is happening in those areas," Gates told reporters.

And U.N. Ambassador Khalilzad, who was the U.S. ambassador to Iraq until April, has discussed the federalism plan with Biden and Biden's fellow sponsor and presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), lawmakers said.

<...>

Biden said recently that the federalism plan "offers the possibility — not the guarantee, but the possibility — of a soft landing in Iraq."

"I believe it is the best way to end the war in Iraq in a responsible way," he said.

The idea is gaining popularity on Capitol Hill.

Joining Biden is Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), one of the strongest proponents of a deadline for withdrawing most U.S. combat troops. Also cosponsoring the measure are three Republicans, including two conservatives not usually seen as Democrats' allies on the war: Brownback and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.

Although Hutchison has spoken since last year about creating semiautonomous regions in Iraq, she has generally been one of the administration's most loyal allies on Capitol Hill.

The Biden resolution — which does not address troop levels — has not been endorsed by the Senate Democratic leadership, which remains focused on the upcoming troop withdrawal votes.

A number of influential lawmakers also have expressed concerns that a U.S. plan to divide the country could increase sectarian strife and create the impression that the United States is imposing its will on the Iraqis.

more


Edited to add: Bush gets just what he wants doesn't he? Unbelieveable!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
txaslftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. Sure. Here's the deal. Congress agrees to do whatever Bush says for 2 years...
...and after that, they can do what they like with the new president.

I guarantee you this is a deal congress will definitely take.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windy252 Donating Member (742 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. The sad thing is, I could see them doing that. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
2. "A number of influential lawmakers also have expressed concerns that
a U.S. plan to divide the country could increase sectarian strife and create the impression that the United States is imposing its will on the Iraqis."

Do ya think?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. Kick! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Fuck this whole government of ours
with a chainsaw. I can barely stand it anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. Are "liberators" entitled to divvy up a country?
I'm just asking... :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IDemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Of course, they have had plenty of practice divvying up this one n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Well, I know corporatists are allowed to divvy up the U. S.,
cause Unka Dick has given them his blessing... but Iraq is a democracy. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
7. hm... is easing iraq's civil war worth starting a kurdish/turkish war? n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
9. Partitioning Iraq

Partitioning Iraq

Would dividing the country decrease ethnic infighting or lead to more fighting and inflame the Middle East?

By Juan Cole

Snip...

But aside from the selfish interests of all the political actors inside and outside Iraq, as a practical policy, partitioning Iraq is too risky. It would probably not reduce ethnic infighting. It might produce more. The mini-states that emerge from a partition will have plenty of reason to fight wars with one another, as India did with Pakistan in the 1940s and has done virtually ever since. Worse, it is likely that if the Sunni Arab mini-state commits an atrocity against the Shiites, it might well bring in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. They in turn would be targeted by Saudi and Jordanian jihadi volunteers.

A break-up of Iraq might not stop at Iraq’s borders. The Sunni Arabs could be picked up by Syria, thus greatly increasing Syria’s fighting power. Or they could become a revolutionary force in Jordan. A wholesale renegotiation of national borders may ensue, according to some thinkers. Such profound changes in such a volatile part of the world cannot be depended on to occur without bloodshed. The region is already racked by the Arab-Israeli conflict and the struggle between secular and religious politics.

If Iraq does sink into long-term instability, it will not hold the world harmless. With two-thirds of the globe’s proven petroleum reserves and 45 percent of its natural gas, the Persian Gulf hinterland of Iraq is key to the well-being of an industrialized or industrializing world. Long-term political instability in this region could drive petroleum prices so high as to endanger the world economy.

Ironically, those who plotted the Iraq war as a guarantee that the new century would also be an American one may well have put U.S. energy security in such question, and so weakened the dollar, as to raise the question of whether U.S. power has been dealt a permanent setback. Americans should pray that Iraqis heed the fatwa issued in Saudi Arabia late last week, forbidding inter-Muslim bloodshed.

Posted here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
10. Kick! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
12. WHAT is holding 70% of the country back? There should be a tidal wave
of rage sweeping us into the streets, pulling down the White House gates with our bare hands, dragging these criminals into the stockades, before loading them onto transports to the Hague.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
13. It will be more difficult for the Global Oil Corporations....
...to enforce the "Oil Law" (PSAs, even the Democrats won't talk about them, except Kucinich) with a decentralized government.
For the above reason, I see this compromise going nowhere.

The privatization and distribution of Iraqi Oil will be commanded from the Green Zone (Imperial Palace), and enforced from the 14 permanent US/Corporate bases. The kids who shed their blood will be our children, and the 1 $TRILLION$ dollar bill for Iraq will be paid by them and their childrens' children. The profits will go to the richest CEOs in the World.

The greatest SMASH & GRAB in HISTORY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
14. I expect permanent bases
and the control of that nation's oil. That's why we went. That's why some dems are for it and against any real action against those goals. And in the end, America will continue to look over her shoulder as well as look at other places to exploit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC