The Daily Doublespeak
From the Daily Press White House press briefing: The question being asked is whether there are long term plans, or not, for us to stay in Iraq after Bush leaves office, and if so, would these plans be binding, that is, tie the hands, of the next president. To say that the official answer is unclear is being overly kind. Read on…
QUESTION: “Joe Biden just gave a press conference when he said – on terms of the possible agreement with Iraq this year. He said nobody knows what the Administration is proposing and he said he had no idea whether they were proposing a long-term security arrangement which would require congressional approval or a short-term status of forces agreement, which wouldn’t – and which he considered would be nonbinding. He said he had written to the Secretary and received no response or clarification on this.”
MR. CASEY ANSWERS: “First of all, as I think we all know, the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq has, until now and through the end of this coming year, been governed under Chapter 7 UN Security Council resolutions. The Iraqis have told us and told the United Nations that once the current resolution expires at the end of the year, they would like to move towards a more normalized relationship with the United States and with other countries that may continue to have a troop presence in Iraq.
But let’s be clear about what those are. Those agreements basically outline the terms under which U.S. forces legally operate in the country. Long blah blah blah I think it represents a real change blah blah blah towards a more normal bilateral relationship blah blah specifically asking us to negotiate a status blah blah Certainly, we want to make sure that any place in the world that U.S. troops are deployed,” blah blah blah for 3 more paragraphs, saying nothing.
QUESTION: “Just to follow — to just clarify, as a Status of Forces Agreement, it would not require congressional approval, nor would it in any sense lock in U.S. forces in Iraq and into the medium and long term?”
MR. CASEY ANSWERS: “Well, again, it’s a agreement that establishes the basis for having troops there. It is not a specific commitment of forces in terms of numbers or operations. Those are obviously things that are determined by the military commanders and ultimately by the President.”
Did everyone get that? Was that an answer to the question? Did he actually say anything?
QUESTION: That was my question, so it’s not expected that it would have provisions of how many forces, how many U.S. forces or how long that it would stay in the country. It’s not expected that those things would be in this agreement. And the next president, what’s their relationship to this agreement? They can tear it up, they can keep it, they can — ?”
This poor reporter is STILL trying to get a straight answer… Here’s what he gets:
MR. CASEY ANSWERS: Well, look, the – again, the Status of Forces Agreements allows you to have a legal basis for operating in the country……. We all want to see a time when Iraq is fully capable of handling its own security needs without the presence of any foreign forces and that’s the goal we’re all working towards……… We also have, I think, an enduring commitment to try and help the Iraqis achieve that kind of sustainability and that kind of ability to control their own security and that probably means some kind of ongoing role in terms of training and helping to support Iraq’s security forces.”
The reporter tries TWO MORE TIMES for a straight answer:
QUESTION: You’re saying that SOFA agreements notwithstanding, the Bush Administration doesn’t intend to – in any way, to commit U.S. forces to Iraq after it leaves office? and “So the Bush Administration doesn’t intend to foreclose any options of a — that a future administration might have vis-à-vis Iraq?
And the responses are:
MR. CASEY ANSWERS: Well, again, look, we believe that we need to have a long-term relationship with Iraq, (followed by 3 long paragraphs of blah blah blah, is asked AGAIN and Casey finally says…) “Look, if anybody is worried that this agreement somehow ties the hands of future policymakers, it’s just simply not true.”
Why does that feel like another lie? Casey goes on to say that “We’re not seeking permanent bases in Iraq and that’s been a clear matter of policy for sometime.”
Really? Not long ago in the Chicago Tribune, March 23, 2004, and all over the MSM, there was this:
14 `enduring bases’ set in Iraq
Long-term military presence planned
“From the ashes of abandoned Iraqi army bases, U.S. military engineers are overseeing the building of an enhanced system of American bases designed to last for years.”
Permanent bases have always been part of the planning.
The White House is to be congratulated. They have a virtual clone of Tony Snow in Casey. It’s become the norm in our government to have someone act as an interface between us and the White House who “spin doctors”, meaning LIES ABOUT, every subject so as to either reveal nothing or to answer without answering. Then if this person is trapped in a big lie, the White House can always distance themselves from their hapless employee.
Personally, I think our government has gone out of control.
Always open trackbacks, just click on the title for the URL.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I read one article that said the Iraqis wanted the US there for many years to come. But Sadr and other groups want the US out right away. The Iraqi military is stepping up, finally, and going out on missions by themselves. I think the long-term plan was for bases in Iraq, but who knows what will happen after elections.