This guy is a real piece of work. George H. and Babs Bush really turned out a hybrid with little George Junior. Thanks G.H. and Babs. Thanks alot.

The SOFA appears vital to give coverage for GWB’s ass those days from 1 Jan to noon 20 Jan when UN paper quits covering it in respect to War crimes, Crimes against humanity, etc. stemming from the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The UN will not renew its coverage, SOFA is the only thing left. If it is not in place, each day brings a reiteration of the criminal charges (IANAL) upon Bush’s head. Obama, will face the same unless immediate action is taken to withdraw ALL forces, which might buy him some grace time.

Any pirates appearing in the Gulf will be Blackwater (or kindred) servicing their masters orders. An International “Shoot on Sight” should be issued in respect to their appearance.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/hom…..56116.html

Translated from the Arabic by Sahar Issa, Jenan Hussein and Hussein Kadhim of the McClatchy Baghdad Bureau.

An Agreement between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America regarding the Withdrawal of the American Forces from Iraq and Regulating their Activities During their Temporary Presence in it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNmULx6sMo4

*G*

If it is as so, I think we need Obama, and to support Obama, to end this mess ASAP.

Once installed, I’m hoping Obama will move in an evac ASAP sitch, fast.

If not, I too, will have issues with him. Until then, I’ll waid.

Thanks Siun . . . good read you posted . . .

Yeah, I think he wants to use that “Mission Accomplished” banner one more time.

Bob in HI

Aloha,
Bob in HI

Bob in HI

another potentially interesting point, per Article 3: “Defence and security cooperation” (my rough translation of what is obviously a rough Arabic translation of the US draft):

For strengthening security and stability in Iraq, and thus contributing to international security and stability, and strengthening the capacity of the Republic of Iraq for deterring any existing threats to its sovereignty and its security and the integrity of its territory, the two parties continue to work for the development of close cooperative relations, relating to defence and security arrangements, without prejudicing the sovereignty of Iraq, on land sea and air. And this cooperation in defence and security will take place in accordance with the agreement on the temporary presence and activities of the American forces in Iraq, and their withdrawal from [Iraq] and the takeover by the Iraqi forces of complete security responsibilities.

Notice that according to this (1) the close cooperation in defence and security arrangements has been inserted into the long-term strategic framework agreement; and (2) while the cooperation is in defence and security arrangements, what is contemplated at the end of this section is the takeover by the Iraqi forces of full responsibility for security, the word defence being missing there.

in this case, one could interpret that the US will turn over iraq’s security, but not it’s defense. IOW the US would remain ‘responsible’ for defensive actions. ie: the ability to have bases for the ‘protection’ of iraq ie: the ability not to attack from within iraq per se, but to defend it.

does this include pre emptive attacks?

also, don’t miss Haifa Zankana’s text in badger’s post. excellent.