From Juan ColeThe intrepid Patrick Cockburn reveals that the White House is more or less blackmailing the Iraqi government into signing a security pact with George W. Bush. At stake is $50 bn. of Iraqi money held in the US Federal Reserve, at least $20 bn. of which could be lost to Iraq if the government of Nuri al-Maliki declines to sign on the dotted line. Cockburn also reveals that the Iraqis wanted to diversify their receipts from oil sales away from dollar holdings into euros, and that the Americans vetoed the move. Bush wants 50 bases in Iraq and the prerogative of the US military to act unilaterally and with impunity inside the country.

Thank you, Salon!  Everybody read this paragraph again and again.

When oil is purchased in dollars...it props up the currency immensely.  Nations wanting to buy oil must first buy dollars.  It forces the rest of the world to invest in the financial instruments of our currency. 

People need to understand this and THINK about what this means. 

Saddam had Iraqi oil moved from dollars to euros.  We changed it back to dollars when we invaded.  Further, the oilfields were protected before almost ANYthing else.

Bush and the gang are now threatening Iran.  Look into what Iran has said about Petro-dollar versus Petro-euro...AND look into WHEN they said it.

Does the Bush mob want to protect Israel?  Sure...but not for any moral reason.  They need continued access to the Middle East...and oil...and to re-establish dollar dominance.  They need allies in the region to accomplish this. 

We have to learn to get past ever'body's rhetoric...get past the pandering....see what the real motivations are. 

Menopausal Mick

Where is Congress on this? Or has Congress already abdicated responsibility? Have other SOFA agreements in the past have to have been ratified (as treaties) by Congress?

Whole thing makes me sick.

To answer that, I have to send you further down the rabbit hole.

Brief version.

Bush/Cheney have been busy little beavers.  They have increased the powers of the executive office to such an extent...that who knows how much Congress can do to stop the establishment of publicly acknowledged bases.

How? ...well one way are those little signing statements that get issued after any bill is made law.  Many presidents have used those little  jewels but,  the last time I checked...which has been a while...Bush had used them to change or ignore over 750 laws passed by Congress.

In addition, recent testimony in front of Senate hearings states that Bush issues SECRET executive orders that are not made public even when they are directly guiding and contrary to... what is publicly believed to BE the policy.

What does all  that mean?  Well, he gets to decide what is constitutional WITHOUT a reflection of his opinion from the Supreme Court...

AND...Congress can't even ATTEMPT oversight because they don't know he's issued the Exectuve Order.

AND...it doesn't attract public scrutiny like a veto would because...well..it's  dadgum SECRET.

Congress has been trying to stop the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq.  How successful this will be is outside the realm of my knowledge, but I've heard them argue about it.

I know the structures have already been built.  But, as far as I know...they haven't been given any permanent classification yet.

If you want links to info on any of this let me know.  Frontline had a great expose on what on the increase of power of the Executive Branch. 

There's a great article on the Boston Globe about the signing statements.

Menopausal Mick

With you on the signing statements, know about them, and you're right, they are a huge issue.  What I'm asking specifically is about the issue of having a SOFA agreement signed by Bush AND Malaki without Congress intervention. IN other words, treaties created by Bush are supposed to be ratified by Congress. I've seen before that Bush has tried to say that this isn't *really* a treaty, therefore it doesn't require anything from Congress. With previous SOFA agreements, did Congress ratify them or was it a president's prerogative to go ahead and sign deals unilaterally? Or, as I mentioned before, just like with Congress giving up their duty to be the ones that actually declare war, did they already write some escape hatch into some legislation that allows him to do this?

Guess I'll need to be on the phone for awhile. Not to Cornyn or KBH, though, they are ASSES.

What I'm trying to say...is:

It doesn't matter what has gone before legally.  He has given the executive branch powers far beyond what that branch  of government was meant to have, and the attorney gen's office of lawyers have been more than happy to say, "yes, Master..that is constitutional..whatever you want, Master".

Regardless of what has historically happend with previous SOFA agreements, he may have assumed power that allows him to do as he pleases no matter WHAT Congress decides.  And, like you mentioned...he is perfectly capable of calling the installations something other than bases.

I do not know what the final version of this latest Iraq funding law contained.  I do remember hearing debate that Congress wanted assurance that no permanent bases be established.. Don't know if they got their way on that...sorry.

I'd be greatly interested in learning what your phone calls turn up.

Mick

Completely agree with you that Bush is one lawless son of a gun. He rightly should have been impeached. I'll be glad when he's GONE.

According to this:

https://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/87084/

You are right.  He's going to get essentially what he wants if he gets this agreement.  It'll just have another name.

Not sure how reliable...first thing I could find. 

Mick

https://www.truthout.org/article/bush-skip-congressional-approval-iraq-agreement

And according to that:

I'm right...he's  assuming powers normally belonging to congress:

   "With the SOFA, the administration is claiming the power to continue using force in Iraq without the consent of Congress," Hathaway told Truthout. "These are issues that have never been in the status of forces agreement in the country's history."

    In a belated response to a question asked at the March 4 hearing, Satterfield maintained the administration has the autonomous authority to keep combat troops in Iraq beyond the expiration of the UN mandate. Satterfield cited Congress's 2002 authorization of the use of force by the president to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

Mick