Post by KNOWTHIS on Jun 10, 2008 11:58:34 GMT -5
The majority of the Iraqi people and their leadership are empathically opposed to a continued US occupation of Iraq. They don’t even believe that the war was ultimately worth it given the pros and cons. So when are we going to leave as the Bush administration claimed that they would do (on more than one occasion) if asked to do so by the Iraqi people? The answer is never, it was just another lie to add to the already overflowing list.
Flashback:
www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20070524_bush_if_iraqis_ask_well_leave/comments-top/
Bush: If Iraqis Ask, We’ll Leave
www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_194261.html
Powell says U.S., other forces would leave Iraq should Iraqis ask
[Unlikely? Oh really? This administration should really stop making predictions]
www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/6966/1/338/
Enough! Iraqis want the occupation to end
Flashback:
www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20070524_bush_if_iraqis_ask_well_leave/comments-top/
Bush: If Iraqis Ask, We’ll Leave
THE PRESIDENT: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It’s their government’s choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.
www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_194261.html
Powell says U.S., other forces would leave Iraq should Iraqis ask
U.S.-led coalition forces would leave Iraq if a new interim government should ask them to, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Friday, but such a request is unlikely.
[Unlikely? Oh really? This administration should really stop making predictions]
www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/6966/1/338/
Enough! Iraqis want the occupation to end
Al-Jaberi added that the US presence in Iraq is perceived as heavy-handed and imperialistic. He cited the massive US diplomatic compound in Baghdad. "I mean why do we need 3,000 employees in an embassy in Iraq if we consider it as a diplomatic mission like any other diplomatic mission? From the principle of reciprocity, would it be appropriate for Iraqis to establish a 3,000 employee embassy in Washington?"
Al-Ulayyan added his critique of the entire invasion. "I would prefer if it didn't happen," he told Congress, "because it led to the destruction of the country. The U.S. got rid of one person. It put in hundreds of persons that are worse than Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, now Iran is going into Iraq, and this is under the umbrella of the United States."
Delahunt also produced a letter handed to him by the Iraqi parliamentarians signed by 31 Iraqi lawmakers from 10 different parties rejecting the security agreement. The letter insists that there will be no such agreement without a clear timetable for US troop withdrawal. "[W]e wish to inform you," it reads, "that the majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and without leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters."
"[W]e wish to inform you," it reads, "that the majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and without leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters."
Al-Ulayyan added his critique of the entire invasion. "I would prefer if it didn't happen," he told Congress, "because it led to the destruction of the country. The U.S. got rid of one person. It put in hundreds of persons that are worse than Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, now Iran is going into Iraq, and this is under the umbrella of the United States."
Delahunt also produced a letter handed to him by the Iraqi parliamentarians signed by 31 Iraqi lawmakers from 10 different parties rejecting the security agreement. The letter insists that there will be no such agreement without a clear timetable for US troop withdrawal. "[W]e wish to inform you," it reads, "that the majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and without leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters."
"[W]e wish to inform you," it reads, "that the majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and without leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters."