Have you seen the headlines? President Bush is quietly negotiating an agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to keep our troops there indefinitely--an agreement that could include permanent bases and a massive military presence for years!1- Bush is trying to tie the hands of the next administration to keep us in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

2- This is a pivotal moment—the agreement is still in the planning stages and if we don't act now, we could be stuck in Iraq for decades.

It's critical to push Democrats into opposing this. Right now, President Bush's troop reduction plan has fooled some people into thinking we're headed toward an exit in Iraq—but this move makes it clear he's literally committing the U.S. to a war with no end. It's an extreme policy and Congress can stop it—but whether they do depends on how loud we are.

News reports indicate that the White House is negotiating an agreement with al-Maliki that could include permanent bases, a massive military presence in the Middle East, and dibs for U.S. investors, which "could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources.3-"That means that during Bush's last year in office, the administration will work out the terms of the U.S.'s stay in Iraq in order to, at the very least, seriously constrain the next administration's options for ending the U.S. presence.
"4- Already Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senators Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama have begun to draw a line in the sand over this, saying that permanent bases are unacceptable.
5- But opposing permanent bases isn't enough. Democrats have to act to stop Bush's move to force us into an endless occupation in Iraq.

An agreement like the one that Bush is negotiating has implications beyond Iraq. Bush administration officials have indicated that a long-term presence in Iraq is necessary to deter what they call "Iranian mischief" in the region
6— meaning that an ongoing commitment in Iraq could also pave the way to an escalation of war with Iran.

News of this agreement broke the very same day that the New York Times reported that the Bush administration is giving up on the benchmarks it had set for the Iraqi government.

7- Giving up on these benchmarks means that there is no pressure on the Iraqi government to create political reconciliation. Combine that with news of this agreement, and we run the risk of having our troops bogged down in Iraq for decades.

This moment is critical and your voice is urgently needed. The agreement that President Bush is negotiating is still in the planning stages and if enough of us speak out we can get Congress to block him from making yet another reckless foreign policy mistake—one that could cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives.

We need to send Congress a message they can't ignore: Block an endless war in Iraq now—before it's too late.

Friggin RAT.......

Kat

I wish I could find that news report again.
A British General stating that where ever his troops withdrew, the violence rate went down as much as 90%

Are we like the latter part of the Roman Empire? I would hope not, but it's looking more & more like the way things are headed;^[

I have actually read or heard that too. I cannot remember where though.
Kat

I can't remember the exact title or the author, but it was a book published not too long ago. As young a country as we are, it would be tragic to fall like this;^[

hate to tell you honey, rep or dems no one is going to pull all the troops out of iraq....thats a fact. we where heavy in germany for 8 years after war and are still there. If the Dems take over I guarantee we will still be there. They are all a bunch of crooks, both parties.....

Yes, but the question is for how long. Leaving Iraq overnight would be very dangerous, not so much to us, but to the Iraqi civilians. At least Biden has a political sollution to stabilise the region so that we may exit responsibly;^]

i knew we were staying there permentantly because last year they were mentioning us building 12 permenant military bases in Iraq

You are very correct. I also believe that parties are a bad choice for us. I am neither.
Repub, or Dem, makes no difference to me. Crooked, crooked as hell.
Kat

We are already building (referring to our tax dollars) a permanent base in Iraq to house soldiers, political figures, etc. The pics of the finished product are amazing (pools, tennis courts, Thick wall surrounding the entire place, its huge.

And??

Kat

And??

Kat

that one isn't for our troops.that's for the new Iraqi military.i know because it caused alot of stir and people were wondering why OUR money was being used to build swimming pools and stuff for the Iraqi Military.

Wheeeeeeeew.....
Kat

duh knew that was going to happen,,,arent we still in Germany:P

This news upsets me greatly. The man I adore left for Iraq on Monday and is supposed to be there for the next 15-20 months. I don't think I could take it if I knew he had to be there indefinitely. I hate Bush.

We're still in South Korea(to keep North Korea stable) still in Japan, and Germany for the same reasons. The only place we had the brains to leave was Nam. 52,000+ lives lost there.. Sad state of affairs. I've had many friends that were in Nam, and a whole lotta buddies that served with me in Germany b4 the Wall came down. When my unit departed the middle east, we left ALL of our vehicles there, on the off chance(???) they would be needed again..That was back in May of 91. It seems to me that most(all?) politicians have their heads so far up their own butts that they are back on top of their shoulders.

we have been building 12 - 15 permanent bases in Iraq since the war started..
and an embassy compound larger than the vatican...duhhh...I'm surprized
anyone thought we were actually leaving ....dems ...GOP ...doesnt matter..
they will keep us there...


One candidate wants to leave ....Ron Paul...wake up people...

The European Command has over 116,000 service personnel living somewhere in Europe, 47,000 in Japan, 37,500 in Korea. Those are the largest groups, all told the military is in over 93 countries throughout the world (not including Iraq or Afghanistan) so why is it that it is the latter that gets you people wriled up? what is the purpose of having the troops scattered about the world any way? something about the cold war mentality of having your forces strategically deployed throughout the world in case of Mr. Inevitability rears its ugly head and we have to use those troops in a hurry. Of course there are those that would say that we shouldnt be anywhere, I understand that but isolationism never has done anything good for this country- and believe it or not some places love to have us there, and oh by the way- we help out their economies too...so even if they say they "dont" want us there truth is they do (for the most part). Permanent bases are a bad idea? okie dokie if you say so---think you put something in the water. Where is the largest threat to the US, region wise it is the mid east. To keep troops pulled out of an area where we could have the largest tactical advantage would be like trying to solve the crack epidemic by supplying more cocaine to the drug dealers. It is the responsible thing to do, and hey what really is your complaint about any way, is it the troops or the money it cost. The troops volunteered, and if its the money then what hypocrits we are.
Glad to drop by and preach, been gone awhile so you could consider this a hit and run.

peace,

doc