Kate wrote:

On May 11, 2:15 pm, dapra <dap...@comcast.net> wrote:

Iraqi lawmakers push for U.S. withdrawal
Moves in parliament echo U.S. Congress' efforts to limit Bush

Joshua Partlow, Washington Post
Friday, May 11, 2007

(05-11) 04:00 PDT Baghdad -- A majority of Iraq's parliament has
signed a proposed bill that would require a timetable for the
withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop
levels, a sign of a growing division between Iraqi legislators and
the prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush
administration and its critics in Congress.

http://www.sfgate.com/

Well, let's be real! Bush would never agree to any withdrawal. He
built the military bases in Iraq to start new aggressive wars. He
built the $billon embassy to spread not democracy, but neoliberal
exploitation to the Middle East. He wants to control the oil, so he
can hold the rest of the world economy by the balls.

That was a plan. The problem is, they should have talked to some
people, who live in reality.

If the majority of the Iraqi parament wants the US out, why is there
a contingent of them here begging us to stay?

Because the collaborators would be beheaded before the last soldiers
left. Some joined the occupiers because they truly believed Bush is a
liberator. (What a rude surprise must have been for them!). Others
just wanted to make a buck.

Did Cheney set that up in direct conflict with what the majority
wants?

I'd think, Cheney just delivered the massage; Do as you are told, or
you will be in real trouble if you loose our protection.

Sounds awfully convienent timing - his trip, the bill, the direct
opposite message being covered by the press here?

It doesn't sound convenient for me. Its a direct rejection of Bushs
plan of 'colonization'.

Problem: Bush isn't swift enough to take (or push) that oppertunity
for an "Honorable" withdrawl... He's hell bent on destroying America.

On 12 May 2007 13:51:34 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in
news:6fOdnXSI5sdoQdnbnZ2dnUVZ_sKunZ2d@comcast.com:

Iraqi lawmakers push for U.S. withdrawal
Moves in parliament echo U.S. Congress' efforts to limit Bush

What a lying headline. The New York Slimes tried the same lying spin
on the Iraqi parliament. But they can't get away with lying to the
people any more.

spins

This is the New York Times headline: Iraq Petition Presses for
Withdrawal of U.S. Troops.

The first 'graph:

A majority of Iraq's parliament has signed a petition for a
legislative timetable governing a withdrawal of American troops
from Iraq, several parliamentarians said today.

So Pelosi-Murtha expresses the will of "the overwhelming majority of
Americans who gave Okinawa Jack Murtha a mandate last November," as
well now as the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi parliament who have
just given Okinawa Jack Murtha a mandate on Friday, right?

Wrong impression.

Read More�

The second 'graph:

The withdrawal would only take place if the Iraqi security forces
became strong enough to ensure that an American departure would
not create a security vacuum or make the sectarian conflict worse,
the petition's sponsors said.

First of all, it is not: "would only take place if." Try: "would take
place only if."

Really, the majority of the Iraqi parliament has signed a petition
calling for what the POTUS has been saying for rather a long time now:
As the Iraqis stand up, the U.S. will stand down.

The Old, Gray Drunk Lady doesn't portray it that way, though.

The petition mirrors the demands by some Democratic lawmakers in
Washington for a timetable for the gradual withdrawal of American
troops from Iraq.

Yes, it certainly does mirror the Dem demand, in that it is the mirror
image, the opposite of their ranting demand. The Iraqis want us out as
their own Army gains strength and competence. The Dems want us out
without condition.

This brand of slipshod reporting is, in a time of war with lives on
the line, reprehensible. I trust the "reporter" [name omitted] is not
purposefully encouraging al Qaeda in Iraq, so he should remember that
deliberate falsehoods can have serious affects.

Yes, you should remember that and not clip parts

Here's a more complete version from the Washington Post that doesn't
support your uh agenda.

Iraq parliament seeks U.S. exit
By Joshua Partlow - WASHINGTON POST
Updated: 05/11/07 7:46 AM


SAVE EMAIL PRINT POPULAR + Larger Font + Smaller Font BAGHDAD � A
majority of Iraq�s parliament has signed a proposed bill that would
require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and
freeze current troop levels.

The bill would create a timeline for a gradual departure, much like
what some Democratic lawmakers in the United States have demanded, and
would require the Iraqi government to secure parliament�s approval
before any further extensions of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops
in Iraq, which expires at the end of this year.

�We haven�t asked for the immediate withdrawal of multinational
forces; we asked that we should build our security forces and make
them qualified and at that point there would be a withdrawal,� said
Baha al- Araji, a parliamentarian allied with the anti-American Shiite
cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose supporters drafted the bill. �But no one
can accept the occupation of this country.�

In both Iraq and the United States, there is deepening frustration
among lawmakers and the public over President Bush�s troop build-up, a
policy that has yet to prevent widespread killing in Iraq. At the same
time, Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are dispatching their
emissaries in an urgent trans- Atlantic gambit to shore up support.

Iraq�s national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, was in
Washington this week to ask Democratic congressmen to have patience
with the troop surge and to not abandon Iraq at such a precarious
time.

Wednesday, Vice President Cheney landed in Baghdad to press the
government to act quickly on a list of divisive political issues the
Bush administration deems necessary for longterm stability.

On his second day in Iraq, Cheney spoke to U.S. soldiers at a base
near Tikrit about the difficulties they face each day.

�We are here, above all, because the terrorists who have declared war
on America and other free nations have made Iraq the central front in
that war,� he said.

�The United States, also, has made a decision: As the prime target of
a global war against terror, we will stay on the offensive. We will
not sit back and wait to be hit again.�

But as in the United States, Iraq�s lawmakers are moving further away
from the views of the government, particularly on the basic issue of
American presence in Iraq.

The draft bill is being championed by a 30-member bloc loyal to
al-Sadr, but it has also gained support from some other Shiite, Sunni
and Kurdish legislators. So far, at least 138 lawmakers have signed
the proposed legislation, the slimmest possible majority in the 275-
member parliament, according to al-Araji.

�We think that America has committed a grave injustice against the
Iraqi people and against the glorious history of Iraq, when they
destroyed our institutions, and then rebuilt them in the wrong way,�
said Hussein al-Falluji, a lawmaker from the largest Sunni coalition
in parliament, and a supporter of the timetable proposal.

Several legislators, including those loyal to al-Maliki, doubted the
effort would succeed at a time when Iraqi troops still rely on U.S.
firepower.

�I don�t think it�s a good idea. Unless we complete building our
forces so we are capable of defending the country, and bringing
security to the country, then we are not ready for something like
this,� said Hachim al-Hassani, a secular Sunni from the Iraqi National
List.

Ali al-Adeeb, a lawmaker from al-Maliki�s Dawa party, said any
timetable for American withdrawal should be accompanied by a timetable
for training and equipping the Iraqi security forces.

There was also some disagreement over the terms of the proposed
timetable legislation. Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman told the
Associated Press he agreed to back the measure on the condition it
include an accompanying timeline for the build-up of Iraqi forces, but
this was not included in the draft, which he called a �deception.�

The sectarian violence continued on Thursday, as the Islamic State of
Iraq, an insurgent coalition that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, posted an
Internet video that purports to show the killing of nine Iraqi police
and army officers.

The U.S. military said one Marine had been killed Tuesday during
fighting in Anbar province in western Iraq. Two other U.S. soldiers
died Thursday from gunshot wounds, one in Baghdad and the other in
Diwaniyah, south of the capital. The deaths raised the U.S. toll to
3,383 since the war began in March 2003.

On 12 May 2007 13:51:34 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in
news:6fOdnXSI5sdoQdnbnZ2dnUVZ_sKunZ2d@comcast.com:

Iraqi lawmakers push for U.S. withdrawal
Moves in parliament echo U.S. Congress' efforts to limit Bush

What a lying headline. The New York Slimes tried the same lying spin on
the Iraqi parliament. But they can't get away with lying to the people
any more.

http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/the_new_york_times_debauches_as_it_spins

This is the New York Times headline: Iraq Petition Presses for
Withdrawal of U.S. Troops.

The first 'graph:

A majority of Iraq's parliament has signed a petition for a
legislative timetable governing a withdrawal of American troops from
Iraq, several parliamentarians said today.

So Pelosi-Murtha expresses the will of "the overwhelming majority of
Americans who gave Okinawa Jack Murtha a mandate last November," as well
now as the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi parliament who have just
given Okinawa Jack Murtha a mandate on Friday, right?

Wrong impression.

Read More�

The second 'graph:

The withdrawal would only take place if the Iraqi security forces
became strong enough to ensure that an American departure would not
create a security vacuum or make the sectarian conflict worse, the
petition's sponsors said.

First of all, it is not: "would only take place if." Try: "would take
place only if."

Really, the majority of the Iraqi parliament has signed a petition
calling for what the POTUS has been saying for rather a long time now:
As the Iraqis stand up, the U.S. will stand down.

The Old, Gray Drunk Lady doesn't portray it that way, though.

The petition mirrors the demands by some Democratic lawmakers in
Washington for a timetable for the gradual withdrawal of American
troops from Iraq.

Yes, it certainly does mirror the Dem demand, in that it is the mirror
image, the opposite of their ranting demand. The Iraqis want us out as
their own Army gains strength and competence. The Dems want us out
without condition.

This brand of slipshod reporting is, in a time of war with lives on the
line, reprehensible. I trust the "reporter" [name omitted] is not
purposefully encouraging al Qaeda in Iraq, so he should remember that
deliberate falsehoods can have serious affects.

Yes, you should remember that and not clip parts

Here's a more complete version from the Washington Post that doesn't
support your uh agenda.

Iraq parliament seeks U.S. exit
By Joshua Partlow - WASHINGTON POST
Updated: 05/11/07 7:46 AM


SAVE EMAIL PRINT POPULAR + Larger Font + Smaller Font BAGHDAD � A
majority of Iraq�s parliament has signed a proposed bill that would
require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and
freeze current troop levels.

The bill would create a timeline for a gradual departure, much like
what some Democratic lawmakers in the United States have demanded, and
would require the Iraqi government to secure parliament�s approval
before any further extensions of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops
in Iraq, which expires at the end of this year.

�We haven�t asked for the immediate withdrawal of multinational
forces; we asked that we should build our security forces and make
them qualified and at that point there would be a withdrawal,� said
Baha al- Araji, a parliamentarian allied with the anti-American Shiite
cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose supporters drafted the bill. �But no one
can accept the occupation of this country.�

In both Iraq and the United States, there is deepening frustration
among lawmakers and the public over President Bush�s troop build-up, a
policy that has yet to prevent widespread killing in Iraq. At the same
time, Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are dispatching their
emissaries in an urgent trans- Atlantic gambit to shore up support.

Iraq�s national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, was in
Washington this week to ask Democratic congressmen to have patience
with the troop surge and to not abandon Iraq at such a precarious
time.

Wednesday, Vice President Cheney landed in Baghdad to press the
government to act quickly on a list of divisive political issues the
Bush administration deems necessary for longterm stability.

On his second day in Iraq, Cheney spoke to U.S. soldiers at a base
near Tikrit about the difficulties they face each day.

�We are here, above all, because the terrorists who have declared war
on America and other free nations have made Iraq the central front in
that war,� he said.

�The United States, also, has made a decision: As the prime target of
a global war against terror, we will stay on the offensive. We will
not sit back and wait to be hit again.�

But as in the United States, Iraq�s lawmakers are moving further away
from the views of the government, particularly on the basic issue of
American presence in Iraq.

The draft bill is being championed by a 30-member bloc loyal to
al-Sadr, but it has also gained support from some other Shiite, Sunni
and Kurdish legislators. So far, at least 138 lawmakers have signed
the proposed legislation, the slimmest possible majority in the 275-
member parliament, according to al-Araji.

�We think that America has committed a grave injustice against the
Iraqi people and against the glorious history of Iraq, when they
destroyed our institutions, and then rebuilt them in the wrong way,�
said Hussein al-Falluji, a lawmaker from the largest Sunni coalition
in parliament, and a supporter of the timetable proposal.

Several legislators, including those loyal to al-Maliki, doubted the
effort would succeed at a time when Iraqi troops still rely on U.S.
firepower.

�I don�t think it�s a good idea. Unless we complete building our
forces so we are capable of defending the country, and bringing
security to the country, then we are not ready for something like
this,� said Hachim al-Hassani, a secular Sunni from the Iraqi National
List.

Ali al-Adeeb, a lawmaker from al-Maliki�s Dawa party, said any
timetable for American withdrawal should be accompanied by a timetable
for training and equipping the Iraqi security forces.

There was also some disagreement over the terms of the proposed
timetable legislation. Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman told the
Associated Press he agreed to back the measure on the condition it
include an accompanying timeline for the build-up of Iraqi forces, but
this was not included in the draft, which he called a �deception.�

The sectarian violence continued on Thursday, as the Islamic State of
Iraq, an insurgent coalition that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, posted an
Internet video that purports to show the killing of nine Iraqi police
and army officers.

The U.S. military said one Marine had been killed Tuesday during
fighting in Anbar province in western Iraq. Two other U.S. soldiers
died Thursday from gunshot wounds, one in Baghdad and the other in
Diwaniyah, south of the capital. The deaths raised the U.S. toll to
3,383 since the war began in March 2003.

Fred Stone wrote:

dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in
news:6fOdnXSI5sdoQdnbnZ2dnUVZ_sKunZ2d@comcast.com:

Iraqi lawmakers push for U.S. withdrawal
Moves in parliament echo U.S. Congress' efforts to limit Bush

Joshua Partlow, Washington Post
Friday, May 11, 2007

Oho, what else didn't the WaPo tell us?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271210,00.html

"The Iraqi bill, drafted by a parliamentary bloc loyal to
anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, was signed by 144
members of the 275- member house, according to Nassar al-Rubaie, the
leader of the Sadrist bloc."

The Washington Post and the Fox articles are almost identical. Though
the the Washington Post only quotes 138 out of 275, still a majority.