Think Progress:

President Bush has long maintained that if the Iraqi government wants the U.S. to leave Iraq, then the U.S. would do just that, as he said in May 2007:

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.

Today, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki suggested having a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition troops. “The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal,” Maliki’s office quoted him as saying.

But the administration has rebuffed Maliki’s request for a timeline. Asked about the prime minister’s comments today, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman hedged on whether the administration would follow the Iraqi government’s request, criticizing timelines as “artificial“:

WHITMAN: [I]t is dependent on conditions on the ground. … But timelines tend to be artificial in nature. In a situation where things are as dynamic as they are in Iraq, I would just tell you, it’s usually best to look at these things based on conditions on the ground.

The State Department also hedged on whether the Bush administration would listen to Maliki. In a briefing today, spokesperson Sean McCormack said the remark may have been a transcription error:

McCORMACK: Well, that’s really the part — the point at which I would seek greater clarification in terms of remarks. I’ve seen the same press reports that you have, but I haven’t yet had an opportunity to get greater clarify as to exactly to what Mr. Maliki was referring or if, in fact, that’s an accurate reporting of what he said.

As multiple press accounts – as well as Maliki’s office — have indicated, Maliki did indeed suggest a timeline for withdrawal in negotiating a security agreement with the United States.

“I’ve got confidence in him,” Bush said in 2007 about Maliki’s leadership. But despite its rhetoric, it seems the Bush administration could care less what the Iraqi people or the Iraqi government want.

The Independent, UK:

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election 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.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military “surge” began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. “It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty,” said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: “This is just a tactical subterfuge.” Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its “war on terror” in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called “strategic alliance” without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create “a permanent occupation”. He added: “The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans.”

Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.

Crooks And Liars

It must be nice to retire and finally be free to speak your mind. Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the man who led American ground forces in Iraq from 2003-2004, has released a new book– titled Wiser in Battle: A Soldier’s Story – that takes aim at the Bush administration with some of the strongest criticism to date from a former Iraq commander.

An excerpt from NPR:

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, I watched helplessly as the Bush administration led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions. It became painfully obvious that the executive branch of our government did not trust its military. It relied instead on a neoconservative ideology developed by men and women with little, if any, military experience. Some senior military leaders did not challenge civilian decision makers at the appropriate times, and the courageous few who did take a stand were subsequently forced out of the service.

It’s gonna be hard to accuse General Sanchez of hating the troops.

Hopefully the media will give this book the attention it deserves, even in the wake of the bombshell McClellan book.

After Downing Street

Former White House Aide’s Revelations Make Out Case for Obstruction of Justice by Rove and Libby in Valerie Plame Case

(Washington, DC) Today Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) called for former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to testify under oath regarding the devastating revelations made in his new book on the Bush Administration’s deliberate efforts to mislead the American people into the Iraq War.

“The admissions made by Scott McClellan in his new book are earth-shattering and allege facts to establish that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby – and possibly Vice President Cheney - conspired to obstruct justice by lying about their role in the Plame Wilson matter and that the Bush Administration deliberately lied to the American people in order to take us to war in Iraq. Scott McClellan must now appear before the House Judiciary Committee under oath to tell Congress and the American people how President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and White House officials deliberately orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq to the American people.”

“The allegations by this former top White House aide – that Rove and Libby deliberately coordinated their stories in order to obstruct justice in the Plame case, that the President deliberately disregarded contradictory evidence related to Iraq, should outrage every American and Congress must respond by initiating immediate aggressive oversight starting with an appearance by McClellan before the House Judiciary Committee. Any continued obstruction by this Administration to prevent White House officials from appearing before Congress cannot be tolerated by this Congress in the face of these shocking revelations.”

Congressman Wexler has led a nationwide campaign in favor of holding impeachment hearings for Vice-President Dick Cheney. Congressman Wexler is Chairman of the Europe Subcommittee and a senior member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the House Judiciary Committee.

The Bush-McCain Challenge

Take this challenge and see if you can tell the difference between these two War Mongers!

The Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON — The White House said Wednesday that President Bush has paid a price for the “Mission Accomplished” banner that was flown in triumph five years ago but later became a symbol of U.S. misjudgments and mistakes in the long and costly war in Iraq.

Thursday is the fifth anniversary of Bush’s dramatic landing in a Navy jet on an aircraft carrier homebound from the war. The USS Abraham Lincoln had launched thousands of airstrikes on Iraq.

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” Bush said at the time. “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on.” The “Mission Accomplished” banner was prominently displayed above him _ a move the White House came to regret as the display was mocked and became a source of controversy.

After shifting explanations, the White House eventually said the “Mission Accomplished” phrase referred to the carrier’s crew completing its 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq. Bush, in October 2003, disavowed any connection with the “Mission Accomplished” message. He said the White House had nothing to do with the banner; a spokesman later said the ship’s crew asked for the sign and the White House staff had it made by a private vendor.

“President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said `mission accomplished’ for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission,” White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday. “And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year.”

She said what is important now is “how the president would describe the fight today. It’s been a very tough month in Iraq, but we are taking the fight to the enemy.”

At least 49 U.S. troops died in Iraq in April, making it the deadliest month since September when 65 U.S. troops died.

Now in its sixth year, the war in Iraq has claimed the lives of at least 4,061 members of the U.S. military. Only the Vietnam War (August 1964 to January 1973), the war in Afghanistan (October 2001 to present) and the Revolutionary War (July 1776 to April 1783) have engaged America longer.

Bush, in a speech earlier this month, said that “while this war is difficult, it is not endless.”

Raw Story:

This week’s revelation of another secret Bush administration memo that seemed to eliminate any boundaries on the treatment of detainees added to the already substantial evidence that US military and intelligence interrogators have abused and perhaps even tortured prisoners rounded up during the “war on terror.”Former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo wrote in 2003 that Bush’s seemingly supreme authority in wartime trumped federal laws “prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes,” as the Washington Post reported. For constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley, the latest memo should be more than enough reason for Congress to begin some serious investigations, but hesitance to really dig into Bush-authorized “war crimes” have precluded them from doing so, he says.

“It is really amazing because Congress — including the Democrats — have avoided any type of investigation into torture because they do not want to deal with the fact that the president ordered war crimes,” Turley told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann Thursday night. “But evidence keeps on coming out…. What you get from this is this was a premeditated and carefully orchestrated torture program. Not torture, but a torture program.”

Gitmo commander ’sick of’ torture talk

All this talk about detainee mistreatment and torture has the current commander of US forces at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, fed up. Brig. Gen. Gregory J. Zanetti told American Legion members this week that the mission of Gitmo guards is “misunderstood” and called the secluded prison, purposefully established off of US soil, “the most transparent detention facility in the world.”

“Quit talking to me about abuse and torture,” he said. “Frankly, I’m sick of it.”

Zanetti must be hearing quite a lot of complaints, or have a rather short fuse, to grow sick of torture lamentations so quickly. He’s been commanding forces at Guantanamo for just two months (since Feb. 4).

Detainees rounded up as part of the War on Terror, launched just after 9/11, began arriving in Guantanamo Bay in January of 2002. Documents obtained last year by the American Civil Liberties Union “describe prisoners shackled in excruciating ’stress positions,’ held in freezing-cold cells, forcibly stripped, hooded, terrorized with military dogs, and deprived of human contact for months.”

Zanetti told BlogTalkRadio that the only abuse he witnessed is “detainee on the guards.”

Regarding “the charges of mistreatment, abuse, torture,” he said, “I’ll just say this. On my watch, I haven’t seen anything like that, nor would I stand for it. And we’re not going to allow that.”

Gitmo tactics partly inspired Yoo memo

So while two of the last 64 months Guantanamo has been operating may have been torture-free, the Post notes that Yoo’s recently disclosed memo was drafted at least in partly in response to techniques that had been used at the notorious prison camp.

Yoo’s 2003 memo arrived amid strong Pentagon debate about which interrogation techniques should be allowed and which might lead to legal action in domestic and international courts. After a rebellion by military lawyers, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in December 2002 suspended a list of aggressive techniques he had approved, the most extreme of which were used on a single detainee at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The prisoner, military investigators later would determine, was subjected to stress positions, nudity, hooding, exposure to dogs and other aggressive techniques. Largely because of Yoo’s memo, however, a Pentagon working group in April 2003 endorsed the continued use of extremely aggressive tactics. The top lawyers for each military service, who were largely excluded from the group, did not receive a final copy of Yoo’s March memo and did not know about the group’s final report for more than a year, officials said.

Turley said the memo had little basis in accepted legal theory and was little more than thinly veiled “spin” to cover for the president to do whatever he wants.

“The president and his aides were very, very careful to go to the lawyers first so they could make a claim they were acting under some assumption of actual authority,” he said. “There really is none.”

This video is from MSNBC’s Countdown, broadcast April 3, 2008.

Update II: Firedoglake has analysis

Update: Washington Post Cover Story

The Guardian UK

The US justice department extended the sweeping wartime powers claimed by George Bush to military interrogators, giving them freedom from criminal laws when questioning al-Qaida suspects, in a 2003 legal memorandum released for the first time yesterday.

The brief, provided to the Pentagon days before the invasion of Iraq, allowed the slapping, poking, and shoving of detainees without legal consequences.

Maiming a detainee - defined as disabling or cutting out the nose, eye, ear, lip, tongue, or limb - was also deemed a defensible interrogation tactic if the military could prove it had no advance intention to maim.

The terrorist attacks of 2001 allowed the White House and the military to invoke a broad right to self-defence, the brief argued.

“The defendant could claim that he was fulfilling the executive branch’s authority to protect the federal government and the nation from attack after the events of September 11, which triggered the nation’s right to self-defence,” read the brief, written by former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo.

While the memorandum was revoked nine months after it was sent, the Bush administration has built on its arguments to assert exemptions from US and international law during interrogations conducted at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere overseas.

Often referring to the president as “the sovereign”, Yoo gave Bush the legal right to override international laws “at his discretion”.
Continue Reading »

We want to run this Impeachment Ad on Tuesday, April 29 in Roll Call, the Capitol Hill paper ALL members of Congress and their staffs read avidly.

Impeachment NOW will stop these high-crime precedents—cold!!

This 1/4th page ad emphasizes “Presidential Precedents” to Congress. But it
will cost $3,715 to appear in Roll Call. We need contribution NOW to cover
that cost so your Congressional Representative will see it on Tuesday, April 29.

Make your contribution two ways:

To give online send donation through Paypal to this email address: DemocracyforOregon@gmail.com

To give by check, make it payable to
Democracy for Oregon
6428 SE 15th Avenue
Portland, OR 97202.

The ad answers House Speaker Pelosi’s argument—echoed by many House
members (perhaps your Representative)—that President Bush and
Vice President Cheney will be out of office by January 30 “so why bother with
impeachment?”

If House members don’t “bother” with impeachment, they are permitting all the “high-crime precedents” that Nixon and Bush and Cheney have put in place to be used by future presidents. And those “Presidential Precedents” will nullify Congress, overthrow the Constitution and democracy—and set up a “unitary executive” dictatorship.

“We the People” National Coalition for Impeachment
For More Information, Click HERE

Alternet:

Following nearly three days of intense media scrutiny, which has now led to Eliot Spitzer’s resignation, Democrats are asking a legitimate question: What about David Vitter…Dick Morris…Larry Craig…John McCain and for that matter Dick Cheney and George Bush?:

Karl Rove just added another Democratic scalp to his collection: Eliot Spitzer’s.

Spitzer has not been charged with any crime. He was railroaded by the Corporate Media, led by Rupert Murdoch’s NYPost and FOX News, with Karl Rove’s “loyal Bushies” leaking furiously from Bush’s InJustice Department.

So what’s the standard here? If hiring prostitutes is a disqualification for office, then David Vitter must resign today too. In fact, a good chunk of the men in politics must also resign (and possibly a few women as well). And a bunch of reporters and editors must quit as well. And pundits too - yes I’m talking ’bout you, Dick Toesucker Morris.

If adultery is the standard, then Larry Craig must resign today, along with half the men in politics and the media.

If hypocrisy is the standard, then everyone in politics and the media must resign today, because there isn’t one who isn’t a hypocrite in some large or small way. Take Saint John McCain on torture, campaign finance, immigration, Iraq, global warming, lobbyists… you name it.

And if a criminal violation is the standard, then George Bush and Dick Cheney should not only resign immediately, they should go before a firing squad for war crimes (invading Iraq and torture) and treason (outing Valerie Plame).

The so-called liberal media did not give Spitzer any easier treatment than a Republican would receive during the revelation of his prostitution scandal and unlike the Republicans who had the gall to applaud David Vitter when he acknowledged his infidelities with hookers, Democrats in New York and around the country were quick to recommend Spitzer take responsibility for his actions and step down. So why the double standard?