another criminal nail ...

 .. in the (murdering) US coffin

-=*=-

There are still a few around, who think that the US 'did the right thing' by invading Iraq, GWBush (no surprise) leading the push. On a different theme - but confirming that the principle is there, he even said it himself: «See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things... to kind of catapult the propaganda.»

At this point, the disgraceful duplicity of the 935 lies should be remarked; nobody should need to lie a country off to war, especially when, as we can plainly now see, that war has led to the death of 100s of 1000s when not 1.3+mio Iraqis, plus the internal displacement of 2mio, and another 2mio more fled. But the price, [do] we think, the price [was] worth it? [1, 2] Note that this is not a complaint on how the war was run; it's a damnation that the war occurred at all, and the total death toll stemming from US actions in and around Iraq is probably well in excess of 2mio - 2mio!

Then it's worth a slight detour here, to recall that the war against Saddam didn't start on 20Mar'03; it was pretty-well continuous from '91, crossing administrations both Repug & Dummocrat. What provoked the final "Shockin' Whore" illegal invasion (now morphed into a most brutal occupation) is thought (by many including me) most likely to have been the adoption of the EURO by Saddam for Iraq's oil trading, plus the fact that the (deadly!) sanctions could not be extended indefinitely; the US saw its wished-for 'grip' on Iraq's oil sliding away.

-=*=-

Now (the 'sharp end'), for a few facts possibly not too well known:

a) a US presidential 'signing statement:'

«... Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability ... The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.»
[US president]

Comment on previous: this is the so-called 'line-item veto' as conceived by the GWBush&Co legal geniuses; the line-item veto mechanism has, AFAIK, never been agreed to. This is simple (if such a thing is at all simple) GWBush&Co unilateralism, and is essentially just one more (ho hum) nail in the US 'democracy.'

b) the referred-to law index:

«H.R.4986
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)»
[US Congress]

c) one'a the flagged sections:

«SEC. 1222. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES RELATING TO IRAQ.
No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:
(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.
(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.»
[US Congress]

Comment on previous (for emphasis): the intent of the section is to prevent permanent US bases in Iraq and/or control over Iraq's oil. Bush declines the section. Geddit yet?

d) another section not flagged as declined, but showing intent:

«SEC. 1227. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FEDERALISM IN IRAQ.
It is the sense of Congress that--
...
(4) the United States should urge the Government of Iraq to quickly agree upon and implement a law providing for the equitable distribution of oil revenues, which is a critical component of a comprehensive political settlement in Iraq, including a potential settlement based upon federalism;»
[US Congress, ibid.]

These may well be the penultimate steps (the actual (inevitable!) theft being still to come), i.e. prolonging the occupation into the indefinite future (McCain's 100yrs?), *not* denying the intent and then demanding that the (puppet!) Iraqi government should pass the (rip-off PSA-mechanism containing) 'oil law,' paving the way for the handing-over of Iraq's 'patrimony' into the filthy clutches of (predominately US) big oil.

Murder for oil? You bet'cha: QED.

-=*end*=-

PS The dreadful US actions can never be excused as 'geopolitical,' the invasion of Iraq is only the latest (criminal) example of US' "business as usual," i.e. pure hypocrisy; they talk about 'free markets' - but instead'a buying their oil - like all the rest of us have to do, they steal it (even if 'only' control over, it's still alienating) - and that, by deploying their utterly dishonourable, mass-murdering military.

For proof, look no further than 2mio dead Iraqis - 2mio! - and the signing statement.

PPS Let me put that, another way: any apologist supporting the (murdering) US actions vis-à-vis the Iraqi people, aka the 'collaterally damaged' = 2mio! dead, could presumably (in retrospect; up to 1945, say) have supported Nazi German actions vis-à-vis the 'collaterally damaged' people outside'a Germany (and those 'collaterals' within), or the Imperial Japanese actions vis-à-vis the 'collaterally damaged' people outside'a Japan. The one and only mistake Hitler or Tojo would'a made, then, was to have lost. To continue, if mass-slaughtering of Iraqis to steal their oil is OK; call it 'geopolitical' or whatever else you like, but then there'd be no such thing as a 'just' war, just one won or lost. In this way we can dispense with all morality; pragmatism is all, and all resort to realpolitik: "Might is neither right nor wrong; it just works mate..." (Are we in Iran yet?)

Tip: make sure you choose your parents and birthplace carefully!