I just looked it up he was the authour of some books that the conservatives didn't like, but was running for the senate, not president.

On November 28, 2006, at a White House reception for those newly elected to Congress, Webb declined to stand in the line to have his picture taken with the president, whom Webb often criticized during the campaign. The president approached Webb later and asked him, "How's your boy?", referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq. According to Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia, aides warned the President to be "extra sensitive about talking to Webb about his son, since Webb's son has had a recent brush with death in Iraq."[28] Webb replied "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President." Bush responded, "That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?" Webb responded, "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President." The Hill cited an anonymous source who claimed that Webb was so angered by the exchange that he confessed he was tempted to "slug" the president, but of course did not[29]. Webb later remarked in an interview, "I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall."[30]

I can relate to that....

Neither of you have mentioned the new Iraqi alliance the president it trying to swing.Since it is an alliance and not a pack it doesn't need aproval by congress. It will commit us to Iraq for 100 years at least, it requires us to build and maintain bases.

The GOP believes if the alliance passes the sheeple will elect McSame

Dicimus, do you have a link to more information on this?

The Plan is to have in place by July '08

I brought that up once before. Nobody wanted to talk about it.
It now looks like the Iraqis wont sign off on it before Bush leaves office.

Without Congress signing it I dont think we will be obligated by it anyway!

But the security pact also faces strong criticism from members of al-Maliki's own Shiite-dominated coalition. Two Iraqi officials familiar with the negotiations warned on Sunday that a deal is unlikely to be reached before the end of President Bush's term in January unless Washington backs off some demands seen as giving American forces too much freedom to operate in Iraq and infringing on Iraqi sovereignty.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080608/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_iraq

If elected Obamas hands will be tied.

Ron Paul is the only person out there that wants to Govern by the constitution as written and bring out troops home from around the world.

$40bn dollars of oil revenue in the federal reserve is being held hostage

I dont think it will work since Congress hasnt even been offered to vote on it!

I'll get back to you I'm trying to find the article

I linked the latest one above!

This was kinda hidden away


Blackmailing Iraq Over Status Of Forces Agreement

Posted: 06 Jun 2008 02:20 PM CDT

I think it would be wise to never “misunderestimate” George W. Bush. His time in office may be drawing to a close, but he appears to be determined to make sure his policies in Iraq stay intact far past his tenure. Yesterday, Patrick Cockburn in the Independent UK revealed that Bush had a plan to keep us in Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the result in November:

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

That’s right, let’s callously play with millions and millions of lives for some partisan advantage. The Iraqi government is understandably reticent to keep giving US forces carte blanche to destroy their country, so today, Cockburn has more:

The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.

US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday.

Iraq’s foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq’s funds would lose this immunity. The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of $20bn. The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq’s independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new “strategic alliance” with the United States.

The threat by the American side underlines the personal commitment of President George Bush to pushing the new pact through by 31 July. Although it is in reality a treaty between Iraq and the US, Mr Bush is describing it as an alliance so he does not have to submit it for approval to the US Senate.

Iraqi critics of the agreement say that it means Iraq will be a client state in which the US will keep more than 50 military bases. American forces will be able to carry out arrests of Iraqi citizens and conduct military campaigns without consultation with the Iraqi government. American soldiers and contractors will enjoy legal immunity.

The US had previously denied it wanted permanent bases in Iraq, but American negotiators argue that so long as there is an Iraqi perimeter fence, even if it is manned by only one Iraqi soldier, around a US installation, then Iraq and not the US is in charge.

The US has security agreements with many countries, but none are occupied by 151,000 US soldiers as is Iraq. The US is not even willing to tell the government in Baghdad what American forces are entering or leaving Iraq, apparently because it fears the government will inform the Iranians, said an Iraqi source.

The fact that Iraq’s financial reserves, increasing rapidly because of the high price of oil, continue to be held in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is another legacy of international sanctions against Saddam Hussein. Under the UN mandate, oil revenues must be placed in the Development Fund for Iraq which is in the bank.

Sorry for the laughing man, but that was a long post to get to the relevant part!!

I went back and deleted a little
I'm kinda new at playin with my puter

I think it sucks that it wasnt presented to Congress to vote on.
I dont think it will stand past Bush without that, and the article I posted says that the Iraqis wont approve it before Bush leaves office.

Im off to bed man. Nice to meet you!