Democrats are being handed a big win on the Iraq issue IF ...

[welshTerrier2]

Dahr Jamail's latest article (see below) highlights the first step on the road to destroying the republicans on the Iraq issue ... the "foundation" for any plan to change course in Iraq (be it a new strategy or withdrawal) has to start with the information contained in this report ... job one should be the beginning of a campaign to educate Americans about exactly what the bush policy has been (see below) ...

without going public with what bush has done, we cannot succeed in Iraq BECAUSE BUSH IS NOT AN HONEST BROKER FOR RESOLUTION ... most of us understand that bush has imperial designs on Iraq ... bush's stated goal of a stable, democratic Iraq is NOT his real objective ...

Do you agree with this statement or not?

the statements made (see below) by the representative from the UN Assistance Mission show the depths of how bush is trying to "puppetize" Iraq and establish a permanent US foothold there ...

Democrats will disagree on the many courses available to the US ... but unless we are able to "out the true motives" of bush and the neo-cons and convince Americans that any change in course must be above-board where all Americans can see the approach, there will never be a positive resolution ... regardless of what strategy Democrats call for, if bush remains able to operate "in the shadows with impunity", the war and the occupation will NEVER END ... what good can come of any strategy that has conquest and imperialism as its goal?

Democrats need to do more than call for a new approach; they need to drive a stake through the cabal that continues to try to implement the old one ... we do this NOT just by saying that it has failed but that its objectives, even still, are corrupt and will never be tolerated by the Iraqi people ... we can't succeed on the current path because those in charge are pursuing a self-serving goal ...

source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0905-03.htm

U.S. influence in the process of drafting a constitution for Iraq is excessive and "highly inappropriate", a United Nations official says. "It is a matter of public record that in the final weeks of the process the newly arrived U.S. ambassador (Zalmay Khalizad) took an extremely hands-on role," Justin Alexander, legal affairs officer for the office of constitutional support with the United Nations Assistance Mission to Iraq (UNAMI) told IPS. "Even going so far as to circulate at least one U.S ... draft." Alexander, who oversaw the recent proceedings in Baghdad added: "This involvement was highly inappropriate for a country with 140,000 soldiers in country."

"There are three ways in which the occupation intervened in the context of Iraq's constitution-writing process," he said. "Firstly, the occupation authorities selected and affected the makeup of the commission that was charged with drafting Iraq's transitional law, and its permanent constitution. Second, the occupation determined the limits and parameters within which the constitution was to be drafted. Third, the occupation authorities intervened directly in order to safeguard its interests in the context of the constitutional negotiations."

Al-Ali said it was significant that one article in the draft constitution on foreign military bases was dropped from the final version. "One article contained in a previous draft provided that setting up foreign military bases in Iraq was to be forbidden, and that the only way in which this could be deviated from would have been by a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament." Al-Ali said "this article was dropped from the final draft of the constitution."

An alliance including the Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars and the large movement of Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said it rejected the draft and a "political process which had been led by occupiers and their collaborators."