"Full Sovereignty for Iraq on June 30"

I can't imagine anyone thinking bases would be worth a fraction of this.

Most lefties point to a paper written by Kristol, Wolfie and others pre-Bush. They had definite goals--they agreed Saddam was an accident waiting to happen, and that democracy would transform the ME.

I think this is the greater purpose and goal.

To each their own beliefs. The US has not been keen to create other democracies there - supporting the impossible House of Saud, for instance....and the pre-Bush stuff I have found is more about his cronies' desire to get Saddam.

But - who knows????

If a stable and reasonable Iraqi government comes out of this I will be a happy Bunny.

Full is such a subjective term......

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1222817,00.html

As to why this administration proceded as it did has been the subject of thousands of discussions here and many more elsewhere, some simplistic and other sophisticated. It's a bit late in the game now to bother restating that stuff.

The point of this thread and discussion was to make more transparent that the claim of full sovereignty was and is a purposeful lie.

Blatham--

You believe the 6/30 date will come and go, and the IGC will not have sovereignty?

Would you say sovereignty is the 'last word' in determination for Iraq (a definition question)?

Do you base your conclusion that Iraq will not have sovereignty on the fact that the US military will remain after 6/30, and will not be controlled by the IGC?

I know you have made many thoughtful statements here, and would only expect yes or no answers. I just wanted to clarify your position.

Thank you.

blatham, Even though you do not wish to cover the issue of why we went to war, General Zinni on 60 minutes tonight said that most generals were against this war, and that the neocons are the ones that forced the issue. The civilian leadership did not listen to the generals that said the US should do everything in our power to keep out of war, but we all know what happened.

CI

Damn. I caught the last one minute of that. I'll check the transcript on line tomorrow.

We've known for a long time that the neocon crowd had the hots for war with Sadaam, mainly because they published a lot saying that. But generals don't usually yak like civilians about what they are up to and what they think. Hopefully, one of them will in the near future, or that some historian will have good access to these people and write this story.

I do not know if Mr. Blatham will deign to answer me. He appears to be in a fit caused by the fact that I caught him in a blatant lie when he wrote the following about a source I listed on May 14th 2004:

Well, since your reference a Time issue which apparently does not exist.

After I rubbed his nose it in, he left with a huff. I guess Mr. Blatham does not have the self-confidence required to be told he has made a mistake. Narcissists are sometimes guilty of that.

But anyway, I will proceed.

Mr. Blatham says that "the claim of full sovereignty was and is a purposeful lie"

I challenge Mr. Blatham although like all those who have had their noses rubbed in their errors, he is loathe to have it done to him again--

l. What is the definition of "full sovereignty"?

Is the definition one that comes from the US State Department? Is it one that comes from Mr. Blatham?

Who gives a damn about Mr. Blatham's definition?
He is not even a voter in US elections.

2. What is the definition of "purposeful lie"?

Does Mr. Blatham have a complete insight into the workings of the NSA?

It appears to me that Mr. Blatham is nothing else but a Canadian who has no personal knowledge of life in the United States and has learned from obscure and unknown sources.

In my readings, I believe I may have found one of the wellsprings of Mr. Blatham's confusion.

Mr. Blatham has pontificated about a certain Dr. Pagels. It appears that he has read her works.

A critique of Pagels' work follows:

"Pagels is one of the writers in the field with that naive sort of universalism that supposes that every religious belief is valid if it is valid for the holder."

I can see how this may have affect Mr. Blatham's thinking.

The quote above may easily be transmuted into:

Blatham is one of the commentators on these posts with that naive sort of universalism that supposes that every left wing belief is valid if it is valid for the holder.

as an aside, mporter reveals his Massagato self more and more as time goes on.....

ebrown- Do you deny that there are many Iraqis who are fearful and say that security is needed?

If that is correct, is it possible that they will ask our troops to stay?

In a column of the Chicago Sun-Times, Sunday May 23rd P. 39A- the syndicated columnist Mark Steyn points out some cogent facts.

quote

"There are some 8,000 towns and villages in the country( Iraq). How many do you hear about on the news? For a week, it's all Fallujah all the time, Then its Najaf and nada for anywhere else. Currently, 90 percent of Iraqi coverage is about one building: Abu Ghraib. So what's going on in the other 7,997 dots on the map? In the Shia province of Dhi Qar, a couple hundred miles southeast of Baghdad, 16 of the 20 biggest towns will have elected councils by June. These were the first free elections in Dhi Qar's history and "In almost every case, secular independents and representatives of nonreligious parties did better than the Islamists"

That assessment is from the anti-war anti Bush Anti-Blair Euro lefties at the Guardian, by the way....Even in the Sunni triangle, remove Fallujah and the remaining 95 percent is relatively calm."

End of quote.

You don't read many articles like this.

We need more information about the other 7,997 town and villages where things seem to be going well.

Mporter wrote:

" What is the definition of "full sovereignty"?"

Is the definition one that comes from the US State Department? Is it one that comes from Mr. Blatham?"

Actually, Mporter, I would have thought the definition might best come from neither - but from the normal English meaning of the term.

Now - while this meaning will obviously be a source of some debate - it would nonetheless be reasonable for the meaning to bear some resemblance to the generally understood definitions of the words, and their combination, no? Otherwise we may abandon all notion of discussion, since each is free to decide for themselves what words may mean.

Let us examine what the normal meanings of these words are:

full: (Dictionary Com.)

Containing all that is normal or possible: a full pail.
Complete in every particular: a full account.
Baseball.
Amounting to three balls and two strikes. Used of a count.
Having a base runner at first, second, and third base: The bases were full when the slugger stepped up to bat.

Of maximum or highest degree: at full speed.
Being at the peak of development or maturity: in full bloom.
Having a great deal or many: a book full of errors.
Totally qualified, accepted, or empowered: a full member of the club.

Rounded in shape; plump: a full figure.
Having or made with a generous amount of fabric: full draperies.

Having an appetite completely satisfied, especially for food or drink: was full after the Thanksgiving dinner.
Providing an abundance, especially of food.
Having depth and body; rich: a full aroma; full tones.
Completely absorbed or preoccupied: ?He was already pretty full of himself? (Ron Rosenbaum).
Possessing both parents in common: full brothers; full sisters.

Merriam Webster:




Main Entry: 1full
Pronunciation: 'ful also 'f&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German fol full, Latin plenus full, plEre to fill, Greek plErEs full, plEthein to be full
1 : containing as much or as many as is possible or normal <a bin full of corn>
2 a : complete especially in detail, number, or duration <a full report> <gone a full hour> b : lacking restraint, check, or qualification <full retreat> <full support> c : having all distinguishing characteristics : enjoying all authorized rights and privileges <full member> d : not lacking in any essential : PERFECT <in full control of your senses>
3 a : being at the highest or greatest degree : MAXIMUM <full speed> <full strength> b : being at the height of development <full bloom>
4 : rounded in outline <a full figure>
5 a : possessing or containing a great number or amount -- used with of <a room full of pictures> <full of hope> b : having an abundance of material especially in the form of gathered, pleated, or flared parts <a full skirt> c : rich in experience <a full life>
6 a : satisfied especially with food or drink b : large enough to satisfy <a full meal>
7 archaic : completely weary
8 : having both parents in common <full sisters>
9 : having volume or depth of sound <full tones>
10 : completely occupied especially with a thought or plan <full of his own concerns>
11 : possessing a rich or pronounced quality <a food of full flavor>
- full·ness also ful·ness /'ful-n&s/ noun
- full of it : not to be believed
synonyms FULL, COMPLETE, PLENARY, REPLETE mean

Of these we may, I believe, extract the following as pertinent:

Containing all that is normal or possible: a full pail.
Complete in every particular: a full account.

1 : containing as much or as many as is possible or normal <a bin full of corn>
2 a : complete especially in detail, number, or duration

Sovereignty: (Dictionary com.)

Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
Royal rank, authority, or power.
Complete independence and self-government.
A territory existing as an independent state.


Merriam Webster

Main Entry: sov·er·eign·ty
Variant(s): also sov·ran·ty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

Hmmmm - what, based on these definitions, might full sovereignty mean?

Might full sovereignty mean this?

"The new Iraqi interim government scheduled to take control on July 1 will have only "limited sovereignty" over the country and no authority over U.S. and coalition military forces already there, senior State and Defense officials told Congress this week."

Or this?

"Washington, however, is insisting that the interim Iraqi government continue to extend broad freedoms to U.S. troops operating in Iraq, including immunity from Iraqi law and the right to undertake military operations as U.S. commanders deem necessary. There may be "consultation" with the Iraqi government about U.S. military attacks, administration officials say, but U.S. troops will stay under U.S. command as will Iraqi government troops."

Or this?

"Members of Iraq's interim Governing Council have called for "nothing less than full sovereignty" after the planned transfer of power on 30 June.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has said Iraq would have to "give back" some power to the US in the early days."

Or this?

"But there is disagreement on what constitutes "all sovereignty". The US, although committed to the idea of a transfer of full sovereignty, insists it will retain military control after June 30 and appears intent on continuing to wield its immense influence over events in Iraq.

The US under-secretary of state, Marc Grossman, inadvertently confirmed this on Thursday when asked by a Congress committee about the transfer of sovereignty: "I'd say what we're talking about is limited authority.""

Really, I rest my case.

I do not think it reasonable, by the way, to return ACTUAL full sovereignty to Iraq on July 1st - but I really despise Bush et al for bullshitting about it.

A little honesty is worthy of respect.

Stupid lies and misleading nonsense are not.

You're hired.

You're hired, with full benefits (full benefits excludes coffee breaks, payment, and any legal necessity of the employer to follow workplace regulations).

great post dlowan....particularly your three closing paragraphs.here's a bear hug

(((((((((((((((((((((BEAR HUG))))))))))))))))))))))))))

dlowan, You're wasting your time; we all know how this administration uses the English language. What is most surprising is how Bush supporters are able to translate terms to meet their own self-interest. The rest of us seems to understand what words really mean in direct contradiction to the way Bush and his minions use them. It'll be interesting to hear Bush's speech tonite to see how many ways he can twist the meaning of "full sovereignty." I suspect 50 percent of Americans doesn't understand the proper definition.