Just what planet are these kangaroos from:

Click here to view the embedded video.

THE Kuala Lumpur Tribunal on War Crimes sat for five days in the courtroom at the Al-Bukhary Foundation to listen to charges against George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez, David Addington, William Haynes II, Jay Byber and John Choon Yoo of the United States for the torture of detainees held in the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo detention camps.

Many would ask of what use is this hearing by a toothless tribunal.

The answer is that the international community has failed in the proper implementation of international laws to which all countries have officially subscribed. Worse still, the laws are applied only against weak countries and their leaders who are judged and punished.

~~~

The prosecution team of the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal cited the Geneva Convention on torture 1949, the Convention against Torture 1984, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter, the US Constitution itself and the rules of conduct of the US military to prove that the treatment of the prisoners constituted torture as understood and accepted by international laws.

The acts were cruel, inhuman and degrading. The accused were proven to have authorised, connived in the commission of acts of torture and cruel, degrading and inhuman acts against victims in violation of international laws, treaties and conventions.

The prosecution also gave details of the action by the accused, through their memos, approvals and directives for the torture of the prisoners.

Former president George W. Bush declared that al-Qaeda was not a party to the conventions or agreements and was, therefore, not protected by them. Further, it was argued that should these prisoners capture American personnel, they would treat their captives in the same way.

The defence in mitigation said that the situation after the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers rendered existing conventions, treaties and laws invalid. The accused were entitled to act in contravention of all laws, treaties and conventions.

After four days of hearings, the tribunal adjourned to consider the verdict. On the fifth day, that is, 24 hours after the hearings ended, the tribunal gave a 19-page written judgment, finding that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had “engaged in a web of instructions, memos, directives, legal advice and action that established a common plan and purpose, joint enterprise and/or conspiracy to commit the crimes of torture and war crimes, including and not limited to a common plan and purpose to commit the following crimes in relation to the “war on terror” that was launched by the US and others in Afghanistan and Iraq:

TORTURE;

CREATING, authorising and implementing a regime of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatments;

VIOLATING, customary international law;

VIOLATING, the Conventions against Torture 1984;

VIOLATING, the Geneva Convention III and IV 1949;

VIOLATING, the common article III, the Geneva Convention of 1949; and

VIOLATING, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter.“

Yes, we cannot enforce the decisions of the Kuala Lumpur tribunal. But the world must know through the hearings that the leaders of a country that frequently takes the high ground to lecture the world on human rights, the rule of law, etc are no better, but are worse than the many leaders and countries they condemned as not adhering to acceptable behaviour, practice and respect for the norms of modern civilisation.

Malaysia had the Internal Security Act. Malaysia did detain people without trial. But it should be noted that there is a law providing for this. The US government of former president Bush detained people before there was any law providing for such detentions.

Malaysia never sanctions torture. Certainly, the Malaysian government never spelt out the kind of torture that could be inflicted on the prisoners. But the US leaders knowingly sanction torture and describe the kind of torture to be carried out, even as they condemn others of being oppressive against their own people.

It is a pity that not many people attended the hearings. They would be horrified at what the leaders of the foremost democracy in the world have sanctioned and are guilty of.

That in this day and age, there are still leaders of governments who break laws and legalise behaviour incompatible with modern civilisation is mind chilling. That this country is the greatest military power in the world is truly frightening.

~~~

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is a court of conscience. It may not have the power to have its findings implemented. But there can be no doubt that without the hearing before the tribunal, the crimes of the leaders of powerful countries will never be exposed to the world.

The findings of the court will be communicated to all governments, will be broadcast to the whole world through the Internet, and via international non-governmental organisations.

The people of the US are well known for their insularity. They know little about the world beyond their borders. They believe that they are always right.

Recall as well that former president Bush cancelled his trip to Switzerland last year due to threats from human rights groups. In 2009, Spanish prosecutors sought to indict “the Bush Six”. In 2008, Vincent Bugliosi came out with a book, detailing a legal framework for how he’d go about prosecuting George W. Bush. In 2006, filmmakers fantasized about the assassination of President Bush.

At least there’s some level of consistency here in their condemnation:

“Right now Guantanamo is still open, people are still being held there and are still being tortured there.”

In response to questions about the difference between the Bush and Obama Administrations, he added: “If President Bush was the President of extra-judicial torture then US President Barak Obama is the President of extra judicial killing through drone strikes. Our work has only just begun.”

After the guilty verdict reached by five senior judges was delivered, Mohamad said: “Powerful countries are getting away with murder.”

One of the most typically heard human rights-related comments about the Tribunal’s recent success in the post 9/11 reign of terror leads the comments on Press TV’s breaking news coverage of this event: “Obama and his cohorts need also to be tried for crimes against humanity.”

Thoughts?

The Obama debacle continues on…

Iran has threatened to halt traffic through the strait if the West moves to toughen sanctions including an oil embargo to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear program. The strait is the passageway for about a third of the world’s seaborne-traded oil last year, according to US Energy Department data.

“Iran has total control over the strategic waterway,” Iranian Naval Commander Admiral Habibollah Sayari told Iran’s Press TV yesterday as the Iranian navy conducted a 10-day exercise in international waters. “Closing the Strait of Hormuz is very easy for Iranian naval forces.”

“The free flow of goods and services through the Strait of Hormuz is vital to regional and global prosperity,” said Lieutenant Rebecca Rebarich, a US Navy spokeswoman in Bahrain, site of the 5th Fleet headquarters, in an e-mail. “Any disruption will not be tolerated.”

It’s obvious that the Iranians view Obama as a weak leader. Someone who likes to order predator strikes of single individual terrorists rather than making the tough, bold decisions. They understand the man will back down to Iran’s saber rattling. The rest of the western world would have something to say about the closing of the strait, that’s for sure, but with Obama’s jelly backbone it won’t be the US they will be worried about.

John Bolton:

His failure to secure an agreement with the Iraqi government is, as Bolton said, “catastrophic”. It has emboldened the Iranian government who is, and will be, a great threat to the western world.

While I agree with some that sooner or later the Iraqi’s were going to have to take control of their future it’s obvious that they were not completely ready at this point. The Iranian threat to the western world is too great to have not worked night and day to secure a diplomatic agreement on the extension of the SOFA. Honestly, we all know why this administration didn’t work too hard in securing an agreement that was palatable to both sides…his re-election.

He wanted to be able to say that he ended this war, and now the Iranians are even more emboldened, and even more a threat.

Stephen Hayes on Tuesday (skip to the 4:30 minute mark)

Well now we see the results of our President leaving Iraq. The mission wasn’t complete but when one only cares about his re-election, about himself to be more accurate, then completing the mission doesn’t enter into the equation.

And the Iraqi’s are paying for our President’s selfish behavior:

A wave of bombings ripped across Baghdad on Thursday morning, killing at least 63 people and injuring almost 200 in the worst violence Iraq has seen for months. The bloodbath comes just days after American forces left the country.

The blasts also came on the heels of a political crisis between Iraq’s Sunni and Shiite factions that erupted this weekend.

The political spat has raised fears that Iraq’s sectarian wounds will be reopened during a fragile time when Iraq is finally navigating its own political future without U.S. military support.

Without our backing this country WILL disintegrate. But Obama based his decision to pull out because of politics, not the future of the Iraqi people.

And those thousands of American troops will have died in vain.

A leading Iraqi politician has accused the country’s prime minister of acting like Saddam Hussein in trying to silence opposition, saying he risks provoking a new fightback against dictatorship.

Iyad Allawi — a former prime minister who leads the Sunni-backed Iraqiya bloc — also claimed the United States had pulled out its troops “without completing the job they should have finished.”

Allawi said that the current premier, Nuri al-Maliki, had used fabricated confessions to demand the arrest of the country’s Sunni Muslim vice president, Tareq al-Hashemi.

…Iraq sits on a sectarian, Sunni-Shiite faultline that is generating conflict throughout the region, notably between Iran and Sunni-ruled Arab states like Saudi Arabia. While the overthrow of Saddam in Iraq bolstered Shiites, the uprising against Iran’s Syrian ally President Bashar al-Assad could lead to power in Damascus shifting toward Syria’s Sunni majority.

“The rise of sectarianism is already there,” Allawi said. “We are witnessing the beginning of it and the influences of what is happening in the region is only adding fuel to the fire. My fear is that the Iraqi people will lose faith in the political process and sectarianism will prevail.

“Unless the international community and the region get involved and unless sense prevails, Iraq is heading towards a very big conflict.”

Krauthammer:

In reality only Joe Biden thinks that Joe Biden is something other than a village idiot. Biden has a long history of making ridiculous and stupid statements.

Click here to view the embedded video.

And here he demonstrates his math prowess:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And here is his health advice:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Now Joe Biden says that the Taliban is not our enemy:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Jay Carney then tried to defend Biden.

Click here to view the embedded video.

We’re fighting the Taliban, but they’re not our enemy??

Glad we got that straightened out.

Oddly, it wasn’t always this way:

Obama: Step up effort against Taliban, al-Qaida

Obama: Taliban and al Qaeda must be stopped

SAN DIEGO —

Senator Barack Obama is proposing that the United States deploy about 10,000 more troops to battle resurgent forces in Afghanistan, a plan intended to shift the American military focus from the Iraq war to the marked rise in violence from the Taliban.

Making peace treaties with the Taliban was once a bad thing- according to Obama.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I have said repeatedly that democrats depend heavily on their supporters having zero long term memory and once again it proves to be true. One thing that is hard to forget, though, is that Joe Biden is not just stupid, he is dangerously stupid.

Ole’ Mitt is giving John Kerry a run for his money for the Flip-Flopper crown:

On an appearance on “Fox News Sunday” a few days ago, Mitt Romney was asked whether, given what we know today, the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. Romney wouldn’t say.

“Oh boy, that’s a big question,” Romney answered. “And going back and trying to say, given what we know now, what would we have done? Would we have invaded or not? At the time, we didn’t have the knowledge that we have now.” Romney mentioned intelligence before the war suggesting that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. After the war, U.S. and international inspection teams did not find those weapons, which had been the basis for much of the Bush administration’s case for invading Iraq. Still, Romney told Fox’s Chris Wallace that the invasion was “appropriate at the time” because the U.S. acted “in light of that belief” — that is, in intelligence that turned out to be faulty.

Three days later?

This time, his answer was not only different but definitive: No, the U.S. would not have invaded Iraq had officials known there were no weapons of mass destruction there.

“Well, if we knew at the time of our entry into Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction — if somehow we had been given that information, why, obviously we would not have gone in,” Romney said.

“You don’t think we would have gone in?” asked MSNBC’s Chuck Todd.

“Well, of course not,” Romney answered. “The president went in based upon intelligence that they had weapons of mass destruction. Had he known that that was not the case, the U.N. would not have put forward resolutions authorizing this type of action. The president would not have been pursuing that course.”

My beef isn’t just his flip-flopping, it’s his focus on WMD’s and whether or not the UN would of authorized force without them. WMD’s were NOT the only reason we went in.

We knew Saddam had ties to terror groups.

we know from Clinton Administration claims, from captured documents, from pre-war and post-war intelligence that Saddam’s intelligence agencies had relationships with various groups in the Al Queda terrorist network of groups. We know from the 1998 Clinton Administration indictment of Osama Bin Laden that the two had reached an agreement to get WMD into the hands of the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development.

We also know from 1990-2003 Saddam’s government considered itself at war with the United States and from 1992-today Osama Bin Laden’s Al Queda network of terrorist groups has been at war with the United States.

A few great posts to read would be the debate between Scott, our Author, and a commenter. Both parts here and here.

Not only did he have the ties to terrorist groups but he had the means to get WMD’s into their hands. This would be unthinkable after 9/11, and after the previous 13 years in which he flipped the world off that was a chance no one could take.

Oh, but there were other reasons:

• The Cease Fire Agreement, broken many times by Iraq
• They thwarted inspections of their WMD facilities as mandated by the Cease Fire
• Iraq persisted in violating other resolutions by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its people
• The fact that Iraq had proven they were willing to use WMD from prior history.
• The fact that Iraq demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces
• The fact that after 9/11 the threat posed by any terrorist group acquiring WMD would be grave

And many more.

The man was evil and committed acts which ARE acts of war, ie firing on US fighter jets, attempted assassination of political leaders…you add that onto his history of aggression against its neighbors and his relationships with various terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, and you have a great reason to invade.

Not just WMD.

The fact that at the time everyone and their mother believed he had WMD is an added factor, but not THE factor.

Ok, off my soapbox.

Now onto some more Mitt news. It doesn’t just involve flip-floppery but full on stupidity. Here he is claiming that the individual mandate is “conservative”

Requiring people to have health insurance is “conservative,” GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told MSNBC on Wednesday, but only if states do it.

The argument aims to improve Romney’s appeal to Republican voters concerned about the healthcare reform plan he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts in 2006. The Massachusetts law contains an individual mandate similar to the one in President Obama’s healthcare law, which conservatives despise.

“Personal responsibility,” Romney said, “is more conservative in my view than something being given out for free by government.”

Oh please. Personal responsabilitity is definitely conservative…but forcing someone to pay for everyone’s health insurance is NOT.

Iraq will become Barack Obama’s Vietnam. Not in the boogieman sense that the left has been using the Vietnam War for the last 40 years where every American use of force is the “next Vietnam” but rather in its aftermath.

The Vietnam War ostensibly ended in ended in early 1973 with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords. The agreement was based upon an agreement by all sides to stop hostile activities and for American troops to depart. The Americans would continue to supply the South Vietnamese military. In addition, the SVN leadership was explicitly assured that were the North Vietnamese to resume hostilities the United States would begin bombing Hanoi and other targets in the North.

Unfortunately for the South Vietnamese, the promises of arms and support were mirages. In 1974 Congress cut military aid to Vietnam from $2.3 billion to $1 billion and then in 1975 to $300 million. Thanks to the Democrat’s Case-Church Amendment, when the North had resupplied and resumed hostilities, the promised US bombing never came. In April 1975 Saigon fell and the South surrendered.

Then came the nightmare. Upwards of a million South Vietnamese found themselves in prisons, “re-education camps” or other tropical outposts where they were treated to starvation, torture and murder. Hundreds of thousands more braved the oceans in order to escape, a quarter of them never reaching shore. The effects of this nightmare reached into Cambodia and Laos as well.

And now there is Iraq.

The war in Iraq was obviously far different from the one in Vietnam. Unfortunately however, the aftermath may be similarly unpleasant.

While Iran will not invade Iraq anytime soon, the country could still become a vassal of the ayatollahs. If Iraq escapes that fate it may well collapse into a civil war that eventually draws not only the involvement of the Iranians, but of the Saudis, the Turks and other neighbors as well. Oh, and, yes, perhaps eventually the Americans again.

However one feels about the war in Iraq in the first place, the manner of the exit ensures one thing, that the American blood and treasure spent toppling Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a viable democracy in the Middle East will likely be for naught.

Not that Saddam Hussein will be coming back anytime soon, he won’t… but the country he once ruled will likely become a basket case or a failed state.

The writing on the wall has been there for years. Candidate Obama had been a critic of the Surge and President Obama’s only priority in Iraq seemed to be leaving.

Iran was paying close attention. Although they had been heavily arming insurgents and Shia militants during the dark days of 2005-2007, by 2009 their efforts had largely been defeated with the establishment of a fledgling but credible Iraqi government infrastructure.

However, the national elections of 2010 opened the door to Iran once again. Barack Obama was inexplicably a proponent of a laissez faire policy in reference to the dysfunction in the formation of the Iraqi government following the 2010 elections. To anyone looking (and there were many) it was clear that the United States was disengaged and focused on wrapping up the operation.

Such chaos invites the efforts of a strong horse. Iran was willing to play. With an ambiguous constitution and a Chief Justice carrying Prime Minister Maliki’s water, the Iranians became the power brokers behind the new government, forcing Mr. Maliki into a coalition that included the Sadrists, erstwhile insurgents led by cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. This was only possible because of the vacuum left by the Obama administration. Had the Iraqis been confident that the United States would be standing with them until they could stand on their own, there would have been no vacuum for the Iranians to fill.

As things stand today, Iraq sits on a precipice of disaster. Within the last three months terrorist attacks have increased, sectarian infighting has escalated and two of the country’s eighteen provinces have sought semi-autonomous status, seeking to enjoy the autonomy the Kurds enjoy. Other provinces will surely follow. For a country with a weak central government and deep divisions amongst its population, such a centrifugal force is not exactly helpful. This will be particularly problematic as the national government seeks to collect and distribute oil revenues, bolster the power grid and perform other traditional tasks. Apart from the growing separatism at the local level, the federal government is a patchwork of alliances, most of which are held together by Iranian influence. That influence comes in various forms, from their covert (but hardly secret) support of terror groups Khataib Hizballah and Asaib Ahl al-Haqq, who are not only responsible for killing US troops but for targeted assassination across the country, to their overt economic, diplomatic and religious ties. As if to put a cherry bomb on the top of this powder keg, the day after the last American troops left the country, the Shiite-led government issued a warrant for Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, the country’s highest ranking Sunni official, on terrorism charges.

Of course it did not have to be this way. American Military planners had long sought to leave a force of between 20,000 to 30,000 troops to provide continued security, run counterinsurgency operations and to focus on training of the Iraqi military. Most analysts believed that number was the minimum number necessary to maintain many of the hard fought gains won over the last four years.

While 20,000 troops may sound rather small in terms of maintaining gains achieved in a country of 30 million people, the message they would have sent to the Iraqis, and equally importantly, to the Iranians, would have been crystal clear: The United States will not allow a democratically fragile Iraq to become an battleground of the Middle East or an Iranian puppet.

That however was never Barack Obama’s message. His campaign would later reveal his message: “Ending the War in Iraq: A Promise Kept”

For some perspective, one might observe that leaving sizable troop levels in a theater for a period of time after a conflict in order to maintain hard fought gains is nothing new. A quarter century after the end of WWII there were 260,000 American troops in Germany and today, sixty years after the Korean War there are 30,000 US troops in South Korea. Obviously the Korean peninsula and Western Europe are different than Mesopotamia, but the notion remains that leaving troops to midwife a long term positive outcome is far from foreign. At least to most people not named Barack Obama.

Instead, the message the Iraqis and their neighbors received from the United States was one of detachment driven by a President with little interest in anything other than ending “Bush’s War”. Whereas Bush talked with Prime Minister Maliki on a weekly basis, President Obama spoke with him rarely and not at all between February 13 and October 21 of this year, critical days in the period leading up to the end of the American presence in Iraq.

After months of doing nothing the administration finally proposed in August of this year to leave 3,000-5,000 troops, far below what most believed was necessary to secure the peace. Those numbers, far too small to fulfill its mission did prove helpful to the administration however: it provided a fig leaf behind which it could hide its retreat. This fig leaf came in the form of a lack of immunity for American troops on Iraqi soil. While Mr. Maliki and other members of the government may have been willing to go to the mattresses to secure such immunity for a substantial force that demonstrated a serious American commitment to Iraq, they were not willing to do so for a token force that would provide little support or security. Even that fig leaf was too small to provide true cover because the administration could have easily put any forces in Iraq on the diplomatic rolls, which would have provided such immunity.

At the end of the day, Iraq will be Barack Obama’s Vietnam in the sense that not only will most of the hard fought gains be lost, but there will be thousands who will pay the price for his choice, starting with the innocents who will be caught in the sectarian crossfire. They will not be the only ones however. So too will a price be paid by neighbors who fear an emboldened Iran as well as freedom advocates across the region who might have sought replicate Iraq’s success and build secular, democratic governments. And then there is the world’s confidence in the United States as a long term ally in the fight for regional stability and a bulwark against Iranian intervention.

Of course all of this comes on the heels of another futile round of sanctions seeking to keep the Iranians from developing or delivering a nuclear weapon. Barack Obama has certainly conveyed a message of strength and stability to the region. “Ending the War in Iraq: A Promise Kept” Indeed.

This is an epic Obama failure masked as a fulfilled campaign pledge.

The US suffered a major diplomatic and military rebuff on Friday when Iraq finally rejected its pleas to maintain bases in the country beyond this year.

Barack Obama announced at a White House press conference that all American troops will leave Iraq by the end of December, a decision forced by the final collapse of lengthy talks between the US and the Iraqi government on the issue.

The Iraqi decision is a boost to Iran, which has close ties with many members of the Iraqi government and which had been battling against the establishment of permanent American bases.

Obama told America not to look behind the curtain:

Obama attempted to make the most of it by presenting the withdrawal as the fulfilment of one of his election promises.

“Today I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over,” he told reporters.

But he had already announced this earlier this year, and the real significance today was in the failure of Obama, in spite of the cost to the US in dollars and deaths, to persuade the Iraqi president Nouri al-Maliki to allow one or more American bases to be kept in the country.

Obama has set the stage for Iranian dominance.

The Pentagon had wanted the bases to help counter growing Iranian influence in the Middle East. Just a few years ago, the US had plans for leaving behind four large bases but, in the face of Iraqi resistance, this plan had to be scaled down this year to a force of 10,000. But even this proved too much for the Iraqis.

This is not a little failure. This is a gigantic failure. Worst of all, it squanders the sacrifice made by so many in the US military.

It can’t be surprising that the US OIF endeavor in Iraq will, once again, be taking center-stage for political spin. What will also be unsurprising is that again the wool will be pulled over the eyes of a nation who apparently suffers from short term memory dysfunction, and gets a failing grade in current events. And the last non-surprise is that the political bear trap of spin, carefully being laid by the left, clamps tight on the appendages of the GOP, happy to saunter right on in, blind to it’s presence.

Case in point? As per the originAL SOFA agreement, negotiated between the Bush admin and Iraq at the end of 2008, and signed by Ryan Crocker US armed forces are to be totally withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the three year contract on Jan 1st, 2012.

There were mitigating circumstances that could change the agreement, were both parties to mutually agree. For example, the timeline could have been accelerated had either party given one year’s notice to the other. This did not happen. It also left open the ability to renegotiate at the end of the period for a new agreement and terms, should either party do so. However there was no obligation to renegotiate, nor to agree to any terms in advance.

So what we have is a Bush withdrawal of troops, as negotiated. And a kudos to Obama for not choosing to renege on that good faith contract – despite his 2007 attempt as a soon-to-be-campaigning-for-POTUS Senator Obama – to push legislation for a March 2008 withdrawal. This is a perfect success story of Iraq independence and troop withdrawal for the GOP to embrace on the campaign trail.

But since the GOP seems to play the part of unwitting dupes well, and current events is not the forte of either media, or a vigilant citizenry, the wheels are in obvious motion for Obama to steal the thunder. Just as was done by a fawning media in 2009, not calling out deception when Obama was portraying the SOFA’s timeline as his own shortly after his inauguration, the media myth is perpetuated today by MSNBC’s Michael O’Brien, declaring adherence to the deadline is “in keeping with the timeline Obama first established in early 2009, when he first laid out a timetable for withdrawal.”

It’s a good line, as long as you can find enough history challenged citizens to buy into it. And just to make sure this Bush/Iraq SOFA, signed over a month before the Obama’s moved their duds into the White House, is continued to be attributed to the wrong POTUS, we have a year of presidential campaign political wrangling and spinning to repeat the lie in order to revise history.

But such bland stuff of honoring a three year old contract doesn’t have the punch without some accompanying drama, and the predictable attempts to make the opposition look like war mongers. Enter the quiet attempts between Iraq and the Obama admin reps on leaving about 5000 troops for training post the Bush SOFA deadline. The sticking point? They want to change the rules about immunity for our troops while there, allowing them to be prosecuted in Iraqi courts for any offenses.

The original SOFA clearly laid out jurisdictional powers in Article 12.

1. Iraq shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the United States Forces and of the civilian component for the grave premeditated felonies enumerated pursuant to paragraph 8, when such crimes are committed outside agreed facilities and areas and outside duty status.

2. Iraq shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over United States contractors and United States contractor employees.

3. The United States shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the United States Forces and of the civilian component for matters arising inside agreed facilities and areas; during duty status outside agreed facilities and areas; and in circumstances not covered by paragraph 1.

4. At the request of either Party, the Parties shall assist each other in the investigation of incidents and the collection and exchange of evidence to ensure the due course of justice.

As part of their request for an add’l 5000 troops for training – down from last year’s considerations for 8000 to 20,000 – Iraqi officials and Parliament wanted to remove the US jurisdiction… and to the Obama admin officials credit, they said absolutely not. I couldn’t agree more.

Max Boot, in his Oct 21st op-ed for Commentary Magazine, opined this refusal to comply with the additional troops, and not negotiate some compromise for immunity by forcing an Iraqi Parliamentary vote for protections, is “…far from being cause for celebration.” Boot, while noting there is still time for US attorneys to enter the picture, believes that 10,000 – not the 5000 that the Iraqis requested – are necessary to maintain the stability that the US has helped to achieve.

However the opinions of Iraqi lawmakers are mixed on both extending the US troops welcome and the questions of their immunity. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has point blank told US officials that the votes to keep troop protections post SOFA are simply not there. The other aside is that both al-Maliki and Obama are astutely aware than no agreement benefits them both politically with constituents.

Naturally Huffpo writers, LARA JAKES and REBECCA SANTANA, seize the opportunity to hype the already laid out process with a screaming headline that the US is “abandoning plans to keep troops in Iraq”. Wouldn’t it be prudent for someone to advise them that, according to the original agreement, there were no plans for troops beyond Jan 1st, 2012?

Of course, one might ask one’s self just why a left leaning rag like Huffpo would want to imply that their hero, Obama, was “abandoning” Iraq. After all, aren’t they, as a community, well documented as being anti-Iraq from the get go?

That’s exactly the point. The direct answer to why Huffpo is screaming “abandonment” is the politics of a political campaign. Is there any credit and admiration due to Obama – who has been vocally against US troops in Iraq since prior to his US Congressional arrival – for honoring terms in the Bush/Iraq agreement, decided prior to the “da one’s” rise to power?

Of course not….

Then again, if the left spin media can portray this as an agonizing decision, emphasizing a great deal of risk to the cost of blood and money the US has shed in helping Iraq become an Arab democracy, they can effectively pull their anti-war left back on the Obama bandwagon by casting him as a leader who “kept promises” to withdraw, despite overwhelming odds.

Of course, for that argument to fly, you’re going to have to convince a war weary public that either 5000 or 10,000 troops for training purposes are going to significantly alter Iraq’s own course of progress and stability. That’s a long stretch for anyone’s imagination. But the Iraq withdrawal event has no positive impact for a flailing Obama presidency without some adversity to overcome, resulting in the favor of his far left base. So the drama and hype must be spin for any kind of tangible political benefit.

MSNBC’s Michael O’Brien (linked above in paragraph five) fully admits this is the case when he says:

And for as much friendly fire that the president has taken from the left for unfinished campaign trail promises, Obama’s move to withdraw troops marks a moment of deep satisfaction for his base, whom he’s courting again heading into next fall’s election.

It also helps burnish Obama’s foreign policy credentials on top of a string of accomplishments this year. Khaddafy’s death Thursday in Libya provided some measure of validation of the president’s measured strategy toward the rebellion there. U.S. predator drones also managed to assassinate a major al-Qaeda figure, Anwar al-Awlaki, last month. And Obama’s scored perhaps no greater achievement than the successful killing of Osama bin Laden earlier this year in Pakistan — something to which Obama made reference Friday.

Of course, we have the added problem of GOP candidates falling for this trick, hook line and sinker. It’s no coincidence that Michael O’Brien tag teams his hype by reporting that Romney is up in arms about the decision to honor the original SOFA… and that unnamed scores of GOP agree.

Romney sharply criticized the announcement this afternoon by Obama that all troops would leave Iraq by the end of 2011, fulfilling one of Obama’s main promises from the 2008 campaign, that he would end the war in Iraq.

“President Obama’s astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women,” Romney said in a statement. “The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government.”

Romney’s sentiment is in tune with what Republicans have said Friday afternoon; most GOP voices have expressed concern that the withdrawal would imperil progress made after almost nine years’ worth of war in Iraq.

“I feel all we have worked for, fought for, and sacrificed for is very much in jeopardy by today’s announcement. I hope I am wrong and the President is right, but I fear this decision has set in motion events that will come back to haunt our country,” said South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the most vocal proponents of the war, in a statement.

MSNBC isn’t the only one to seize the moment of opportunity. The LA Times official (meaning “unnamed”) op-ed takes the ball and runs with their title, “On Iraq, Obama’s GOP critics take the political low road.”

Are you getting a grip on the game plan yet? Have you kept in mind this is all about *five thousand troops there for training purposes only?* Sucker punch, indeed.

Yes… one can hear the leftist MSNBC’s drums of war soundtrack – probably an old Paul Simon archived track – snickering as they gleefully set up the GOP fools for playing the war mongers over the next year….

… did I mention this was all over 5000, not combat, but training personnel???

Unfortunately, Herman Cain’s handlers didn’t prepare the candidate for the trap either. Cain stepped into the bear trap not only willingly, but made sure it clamped tight around his ankles when he not only donned the war monger mask, but blamed the SOFA agreement on Obama.

….sigh… It appears that consultants for the GOP field better start getting educated to the way the game is played, and stop helping the opposition by being the moth drawn to the light in the bug zapper.

So it will be another year of Iraq as a campaign issue… only this time attempting to make a non story, *the* story of Obama heroism, while still hijacking the credit and truth of withdrawal timetable schedule from Bush and the Iraqis. And, of course, the GOPers are already jumping on the band wagon to claim the war monger title that, if they thought for a minute, is far more attributable to this Commander in Chief. Talk about letting a great moment go to waste…. it’s a time to be shouting that the Bush withdrawal should be adhered to, and not allow that wind to go into Obama’s sails.

In the end, enough is enough. The troop numbers requested, and their tasks, will not make a dent in the Iraqis continued progress. And if they are so necessary, they can acquiesce to US terms for their presence. If not, it’s time to go home and see how the Iraqis do on their own.

Mini-update here with another lost opportunity, slipping thru the GOP’s fingers on Iraq. It was never the Bush admin’s intention to have permanent bases in Iraq, as even the liberal Salon pointed out in 2006. Within that article are quotes from Def Sec’y Rumsfeld, CentCom commander Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmett, and Karen Hughes, reiterating we wanted to get the job done, and leave.

But all that has changed, and it is now the Obama administration, playing war monger-in-chief. Why? The less than stellar harbingers of those so called “freedom fighters” in the Arab Spring uprisings, and the unstability in their aftermath, providing inroads to radical anti-American jihad groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

The question now is why the US is insistent upon keeping up the presence despite the costs.

For sure, the recent developments in the Arab world, the fall of the Tunisian and Egyptian dictators and the prospect of change in the configuration of the Persian Gulf Arab regimes would affect the US decision to remain in Iraq.

The changes, which have so far taken place, are definitely not in the interests of the US and the Israeli regime. Washington is, therefore, seriously concerned about the upheavals.

The crisis in the tiny island of Bahrain has compelled the US to seek a new location for its Fifth Fleet.

From the perspective of the US, Iraq, having passed the stage of the Arab uprisings, will enjoy greater stability in the future compared to other small Persian Gulf states.

Again… sucker punched. Letting Obama seize the Bush/Iraq success as his own, twisting the negotiations to make him look like the leftist hero to appease his base, and dodging the reality that it is Obama – not Bush – who wants to permanently occupy Iraq.

Another Obama failure.

After 9 years of American sacrifice in Iraq Obama has announced he will withdraw ALL our troops from the country. He tried to frame it as a campaign promise from 2008 but now we know that isn’t the reason. The reason is due to his complete failure to negotiate with the Iraqi’s:

President Obama’s announcement on Friday that all American troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year was an occasion for celebration for many, but some top American military officials were dismayed by the announcement, seeing it as the president’s putting the best face on a breakdown in tortured negotiations with the Iraqis.

And for the negotiators who labored all year to avoid that outcome, it represented the triumph of politics over the reality of Iraq’s fragile security’s requiring some troops to stay, a fact everyone had assumed would prevail.

…This month, American officials pressed the Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani’s compound to discuss the issue. This time the Americans asked them to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the most difficult hurdle. But they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Still burdened by the traumas of this and previous wars, and having watched the revolutions sweeping their region, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty.

Acutely aware of that sentiment, the Iraqi leadership quickly said publicly that they would not support legal protections for any American troops. Some American officials have privately said that pushing for that meeting — in essence forcing the Iraqis to take a public stand on such a controversial matter before working out the politics of presenting it to their constituents and to Parliament — was a severe tactical mistake that ended any possibility of keeping American troops here past December.

Because of this failure we will not be allowed a orderly transition, which threatens the sacrifice made by almost 4,500 American who gave their lives, and the thousands upon thousands who served over there. Not to mentions the billions of dollars spent. Why? Because he couldn’t successfully negotiate with those who still want us there.

Amazing.

But is it just a negotiating failure?

Isn’t there some kind of election coming up soon?

And now with no American presence in Iraq, Iran will have a completely free hand.

Exit quote:

If there is one constant of American military history it is that the longer our troops stay in a country the better the prospects of a successful outcome. Think of Germany, Italy, Japan or South Korea. Conversely when U.S. troops rush for the exits hard-won wartime gains can quickly evaporate. Think of the post-Civil War South, post-World War I Germany, post-1933 (and post-1995) Haiti, post-1972 Vietnam, or, more recently, post-1983 Lebanon and post-1993 Somalia.

The liberal hypocrisy is mindblowing….just mindblowing:

So Obama enters a war against a foe who had no intention of attacking us, where no vital U.S. interests were in jeopardy, and then after the 60 days are up he illegally keeps us in that war lying to us about our intentions (since when do tanks and convoys fly?) but it’s all a-ok because the dictator is dead?

Hmmmm:

If anyone deserved the treatment given to Khaddafi it is KSM. He deserved to be drug through the streets, beaten and summarily executed. But the left whined and railed because the man was waterboarded. After which he gave hugely valuable information. Now this animal is executed (and deserved the treatment received) but we hear no whines about human rights and all that jazz.

Tom Maguire reminds us of another hypocrisy. Recall the complaints given by the left over the Iraq war. Specifically that we had no plan AFTER we defeated the enemy. Funny how we’re not hearing those complaints now as Obama leads from behind, but is quick to take all the kudos for the death of Khaddafi.

I’m happy the thug is dead, but the whole thing stinks to high heaven of mindblowing hypocrisy.