[Peace-discuss] What was that war about?

[Jenifer Cartwright]

Fwiw, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate I've heard mention/describe what's outlined in the Declaration of Principles and voice her strong opposition to them and to Bush's acting w/o congressional approval. Keith Olbermann railed against them when Bush first signed them... and I expected an outcry from Congress (and the media?) but there was pretty much silence all the way 'round (including this list, not counting me).
   
  Speaking of Chomsky on DN! today -- I think he's right about everything he says, EXCEPT this: the reason those running for prez aren't giving Iraq top priority in stump speeches is that -- in 2008 -- voters are more concerned about domestic issues like the economy and health care than they were in 2004, and -- despite 70% saying otherwise -- they don't see the connection betw Iraq and the US economy top to bottom... plus (right or wrong/right or left) the candidates have all pretty much stated their positions on the subject of Iraq (including horse-changing late in the day). Jmho.
   --Jenifer

"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
  [From the conclusion of a recent speech by Noam Chomsky, excerpted on 
Democracy Now! today. --CGE]

....let me finally return to the first member of the Axis of Evil: Iraq. 
Washington does have expectations, and they’re explicit. There are 
outlined in a Declaration of Principles that was agreed upon, if you can 
call it that, between the United States and the US-backed, US-installed 
Iraqi government, a government under military occupation. The two of 
them issued the Declaration of Principles. It allows US forces to remain 
indefinitely in Iraq in order to “deter foreign aggression” -- well, the 
only aggression in sight is from the United States, but that’s not 
aggression, by definition -- and also to facilitate and encourage “the 
flow of foreign investments [to] Iraq, especially American investments.” 
I’m quoting. That’s an unusually brazen expression of imperial will.

In fact, it was heightened a few days ago, when George Bush issued 
another one of his signing statements declaring that he will reject 
crucial provisions of congressional legislation that he had just signed, 
including the provision that forbids spending taxpayer money—I’m 
quoting—“to establish any military installation or base for the purpose 
of providing for the permanent stationing of [United States} Armed 
Forces in Iraq” or “to exercise [United States] control of the oil 
resources of Iraq." OK? Shortly after, the New York Times reported that 
Washington “insists”—if you own the world, you insist—“insists that the 
Baghdad government give the United States broad authority to conduct 
combat operations,” a demand that “faces a potential buzz saw of 
opposition from Iraq, with its
deep sensitivities about being seen as a 
dependent state.” It’s supposed to be more third world irrationality.

So, in brief, the United States is now insisting that Iraq must agree to 
allow permanent US military installations, grant the United States the 
right to conduct combat operations freely, and to guarantee US control 
over the oil resources of Iraq. OK? It’s all very explicit, on the 
table. It’s kind of interesting that these reports do not elicit any 
reflection on the reasons why the United States invaded Iraq. You’ve 
heard those reasons offered, but they were dismissed with ridicule. Now 
they’re openly conceded to be accurate, but not eliciting any retraction 
or even any reflection...

###
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss




       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080226/8b6d3b3a/attachment.html