Thursday, September 13, 2007

US to Have Permanent Presence in Iraq? Not "No," HELL NO!

Sources on the Left have been saying for YEARS that Bush's intention was to establish a permanent presence in Iraq. It's about the oil, disaster capitalism, war profiteering, and neo-imperialism.

The only surprise is that King George is telling us about it--now, six years late.

Chris Matthews, cut the wide-eyed, chin-dropping BS. Who the hell didn't know this? The only surprise is that King George is telling us about it--now, six years late.

We've known about permament air bases and the world's largest embassy installation for ages. The latter was a public story a year ago:

Updated: 2:45 p.m. MT April 14, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The fortress-like compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq’s turbulent future.

The new U.S. Embassy also seems as cloaked in secrecy as the ministate in Rome.

“We can’t talk about it. Security reasons,” Roberta Rossi, a spokeswoman at the current embassy, said when asked for information about the project.

If you didn't see this coming, you've been asleep.

Where we stand: IF Congress has any guts at all, we are in a constitutional crisis. The President does not have unilateral authority to commit this country to a Korea-like marriage without the consent of Congress. If Congress does not draw the line in the sand now, we have a monarchy. It's one or the other.

This sure ups the ante for the September 15 march in Washington.

Time to call Pelosi and Reid. This is about the Democratic leadership in Congress, first, and then it's about pressuring the swing vote in the GOP. Get on the horn, people.