Obama Meets With Iraq's Al Maliki: Holds To Bush Timetable For 2010-2011 Troop Withdrawals

For Any and All American Conserve-atives:

The AP reported today that in a meeting with Iraq's president, Nouri al-Maliki, Mr. Obama reiterated the terms of the agreement reached in the last 100 days of the Bush Administration for American troop withdrawals beginning in August of next year.

Although this agreement got little press with Americans diverted by the U.S. elections and appointments of cabinet members in the new Obama Administration, this meeting and the AP's report appeared to be nothing more than merely an affirmation of Mr. Obama to the Bush agenda and timetable for troop withdrawals which was quietly executed in his last 100 days in office.

Interestingly, of course, and just to show how truly political this matter also is, it calls for complete withdrawal by the end of 2011, just in time for the next presidential election cycle.

Watch for Mr. Obama and the Democratic wing of the Global Socialist Party to then to use this to take credit for Mr. Obama having "lived up to his campaign promise" to bring our trooops home and end the war.

While actually continuing to engage in it for the entire length of his first term in office, per those Bush agreements and accords.

Recently also, complications have arisen in the closing down of Guantanamo according to Mr. Obama's prior promises also along those lines. His Administration is now stating just how complicated this is going to be.

Although, of course, we have several maximum security prison facilities if need be in the United States in order to house any and all detainees with prima facie connections to the attacks in New York by the claimed responsible individuals, the Taliban, if need be.

One off the coast of California that hasn't been used in decades, but is quite secure and for little cost would provide adequate security for such foreign detainees.

Although, of course, Ms. Feinstein has a problem using a maximum security prison such as Alcatraz for the actual purpose for which it was paid for and provided by the U.S. taxpayers.

For the housing of violent criminals that needed maximum security detention while awaiting their trials if denied bail due to the severeity of their charged crimes, or upon conviction.

Imagine that, a California legislator protesting using a U.S. taxpayer funded facility (and not a part of California) in order to actually house foreign prisoners.

And due to its location also the best and most economical security facility for the American people security-wise also due to its off shore location.

It does appear that the Bush timetables and agendas continue under Mr. Obama, and the "changes" which are becoming more and more clear with each and every new announcement out of Washington and the White House now controlled press seems to simply have been a change in the mouthpiece, but not the overall agendas.

Stimulating Iraq's economy also was a topic for the pow wow between Mr. Obama and Mr. al Maliki due to the fact that Iraq's economy and infrastructure have been totally wiped out due to the "war," although the U.S. is pumping literally billions of our worthless now dollars here into Iraq in order to now rebuild the infrastructure that was destroyed during the invasion and capture of Saddam Hussein now over three years ago.

Mr. al Maliki also mentioned his wish to stimulate international and foreign investment into Iraq in order to pump up its lagging economy.

Maybe he ought to take a history lesson into what is now going on in the U.S. with respect to its economy if his country also is entertaining "going global" in any respect.

Americans now are in the bread lines and homeless due to America's "globalized" economy, and now eating the debts for both this war on Iraq's (and Israel's primarily also) behalf, and also the foreign investors due to the international British bankers manipulation of the U.S. currency during this war that has depressed it to the point where the U.S. dollar is now at almost its lowest point ever.

While, of course, it was Great Britain that entered into that earlier "accord" creating essentially the nation of Israel even prior to World War II, an agreement between the bankers and a British Lord signed prior to World War I, actually. So America truly is under 'sovereign' British rule at this point fundamentally once again due to the U.S. back in 1913 breaching our Constitution and "privatiziing" and affording foreign investment into our most fundamental area and one of Congress's primary duties - regulation and printing of our domestic currency.

We don't even have silver dollars or silver quarters in circulation anymore due to that violation, and have had progressive depressions and recessions thereafter every since due to having a fiat, rather than full faith and credit exchange based currency system now in place.

And the British and foreign investors are now buying up our nuclear power plants and infrastructure, and even the stately homes now in New Orleans, thus under now more foreign control than this country was back in 1776 when the founders fought our first war to break free from a global government, and global control by the British.

In fact, the people in this country by and large are worse off economically and personally, than those founders were in 1776 with respect to "unalienable" rights violations such as have occurred since that fateful day in September over eight years ago.

Be careful what you wish for, Mr. al Maliki.

Diversification and foreign investment is not always postive, but can and many times is regressive and simply a change in dictators. And increase, not decrease, civil unrest due to foreign interests determing national and governmental policies.

Economic dictators, but dictators all the same.

The continuing civil unrest between the various religious factions also was discussed.

And it is unclear if it is and has been the intention of the U.S. to assist the Iraqi government and people why the suggestion that the country not be divided into states and more mirror a "republican" form of government rather than a pure democracy has not been pursued - which is actually more along the lines of the form of government the U.S. formerly had also.

Not a democracy, since our founders felt that democracies were once again nothing more than "gang rule" and ended in successive civil wars in order to change the "ruling" party, and ended up in the end destroying the countries in the process due to the costs of those continuing wars in both blood and treasure.

Nor maintaining foreign alliances past the point of the immediate need in defense of a sovereign nation and securing its country and its borders.

Which appears should at least now, three years later, be attainable without direct U.S. involvement at this point.

Especially with the U.S. economy now continuing to tank in the process, while there again were more U.S. casualties this past year than there have been Iraqi military casualties, meaning that for the skirmishes that still remain, it is clear that the U.S. military is still doing most of the fighting.

But I guess the AP story at least was a good public relations tool in order to once again promise the American people that this war, entered into under false intelligence to begin with which was fully eventually admitted by the prior Administration, "someday" might end.

I just hope that it does end before a good 3/4's the American people are homeless and jobless, rather than it appears the 1/3 that have been so far affected.

Or another mother receives another visit from Pentagon protcol with the sad news that her son has become now the latest victim.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5js_Znl58WrrbnNO-nAMzPmi4QG4AD9BEVBE00