quote:

---

PARIS (AFP) - Already feeling the heat at home to pull out of Iraq, US President George W. Bush was under mounting international pressure Thursday to bring American troops home.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani followed the lead of Saudi King Abdullah the previous day at the same Arab summit in Riyadh, hitting out at the US for its "occupation" of his country and attacking Washington's mistakes.

"In beloved Iraq, blood is being shed among brothers in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and ugly sectarianism threatens civil war," Abdullah told the high-powered gathering.

The United States, which considers Saudi Arabia a key ally in the region, admitted to being caught off guard.

"We were a little surprised," said US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns. "Obviously, we will seek clarification."

But later Thursday, the White House rebuffed Abdullah's remarks.

"When it comes to the coalition forces being in Iraq, we are there under the UN Security Council resolutions and at the invitation of the Iraqi people," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters.

Asked whether the US military presence in Iraq was illegitimate, as the Saudi king had said, Perino replied: "Certainly not."

---

The Fake Fight Over the Iraq War: That Was an Antiwar Vote?

quote:

---

Has the end of America's war on Iraq been brought closer by the recent vote in the House of Representatives? On March 23, the full House voted 218 to 212 to set a timeline on the withdrawal of US troops, with September 1, 2008, as the putative date after which war funding might be restricted to withdrawal purposes only. It's not exactly a stringent deadline. It only requires Bush to seek Congressional approval before extending the occupation and spending new funds to do so.

On Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi's website we find her portrait of what US troops will be doing in Iraq following this withdrawal or "redeployment," should it occur late next year on the bill's schedule. "US troops remaining in Iraq may only be used for diplomatic protection, counterterrorism operations and training of Iraqi Security Forces." But does this not bear an eerie resemblance to Bush's presurge war plan? Will the troops being redeployed out of Iraq even come home? No, says Pelosi, as does Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. These troops will go to Afghanistan to battle al Qaeda.

---

Larry Everest:

quote:

---

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi hailed this as a vote “to bring an end to the war in Iraq.” But it is no such thing. This bill (and a similar Democratic Party bill under consideration in the Senate) is not a step towards ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq or the larger “war on terror” it is part of. This bill doesn't represent a condemnation of — or accountability for — the U.S.’s unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq. Rather the bill’s stated goal is to “help fight the war on terror.” And the bill certainly doesn’t call for U.S. forces to leave the Middle East/Central Asian region.

Instead of ending the war, this bill is an effort to pressure the Bush regime to adjust its strategy in Iraq and the region to better preserve U.S. imperialist hegemony and stamp out anti-U.S. resistance, Islamic fundamentalism in particular. It’s also designed to rein in and paralyze the millions who are increasingly angry and disillusioned with the war and the Bush regime, and channel these feelings into support for a different (Democratic Party) strategy and tactics in waging that war. So while talking of ending the war, the Democrats offer a plan to continue the war in Iraq, expand the war in Afghanistan, and give Bush a green light to attack Iran!

---

[ 31 March 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]