Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIraq Lawmakers Want US Forces Out As Part of Deal
WASHINGTON - A majority of the Iraqi parliament has written to Congress rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that U.S. forces leave, a U.S. lawmaker said on Wednesday.
Rep. William Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat and Iraq war opponent, released excerpts from a letter he was handed by Iraqi parliamentarians laying down conditions for the security pact that the Bush administration seeks with Iraq.
The proposed pact has become increasingly controversial in Iraq, where there have been protests against it. It has also drawn criticism from Democrats on the presidential election campaign trail in the United States, who say President George W. Bush is trying to dictate war policy after he leaves office.
"The majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq," the letter to the leaders of Congress said.
The signatures represented just over half the membership of Iraq's parliament, said Delahunt, a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee chairman.
Two Iraqi lawmakers whose parties were listed as signatories testified to Delahunt's panel on Wednesday that U.S. troops should leave Iraq, and that talks on the long-term security pact should be postponed until after they are gone.
"What are the threats that require U.S. forces to be there?" asked Nadeem Al-Jaberi, a co-founder of the al-Fadhila Shi'ite political party, speaking through a translator.
"I would like to inform you, there are no threats on Iraq. We are capable of solving our own problems," he declared. He favored a quick pullout of U.S. forces, which invaded the country in 2003 and currently number around 155,000.
A Sunni Iraqi lawmaker, Khalaf Al-Ulayyan, founder of the National Dialogue Council, said bilateral talks on a long-term security deal should be shelved until American troops leave -- and until there is a new government in Washington.
"We prefer to delay until there is a new administration in the United States," he said. The United States elects a new president in November; Democrat Barack Obama, who clinched his party's nomination this week, is among senators sponsoring a bill requiring any long-term pact with Iraq be submitted to Congress for approval.
A senior U.S. official said in Baghdad earlier this week that the United States still hopes to reach a new security agreement with Iraq by July, even though officials in the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki say negotiations are at an early stage.
(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)
© 2008 Reuters
26 Comments so far
Show AllThe Bushies, the neoconservatives that put him in office, and then that he hired for this administration, have wanted U.S. bases in every part of the world as part of a Pax Americana. A world free for democracy of a very specific type, i.e. "free" market democracy, where the freedom of Americans is limited to their consumption, and the rest of the world provides the West with cheap labor and resources.
The Bushies, including John McCain, are very comfortable with the situation in Iraq. They are not having a problem with "how to get out". Their problem is how to convince Americans to stay in Iraq, confine (or occupy) Iran, and keep pressure on the Muslims to allow the laws of the market (which cares nothing for the sick, the poor, the needy, old people, family values, etc., etc.) to take precedence over the laws of Allah which instruct us to treat people fairly. America and the West cannot treat the rest of the world fairly. Who would do the work? Where would we get our oil? How could we stay rich? God forbid! Pax Americana! A pox on the Bushies!
For the record, Sen. Obama has been saying only that this needs Senate approval (like any treaty under the Constitution btw). As far as I can find, I have not seen any statements by Mr. Obama that he opposes this agreement.
Since Sen. Obama has been steadily saying that he'll keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq (at least) until the end of his first term in 2012, he'd need some agreement like this. Its either that or an extension of the UN Sec Council resolutions that expire later this summer. Those two are the only courses to have even a legal fig leaf for keeping an army in another country.
Regarding the comment on oil, Sen. Obama has always been promoting a 'benchmark' that an 'oil law' be passed. One of the key features of this oil law is that it puts Iraqi oil in the hands of the big oil companies.
We should have simply left in 2006, say, but the US taxpayers have been hijacked and forced to endure too much economic damage now. We must control the Iraqi oil income for lots of good reasons as well as for our own repayment.
June 06
Iraq Lawmakers Want US Forces Out As Part of Deal - CommonDreams.org
I am wondering if any of the presidential Candidates, including Senator June 06
Iraq Lawmakers Want US Forces Out As Part of Deal - CommonDreams.org
I am wondering if any of the presidential Candidates, including Senator June 06
Iraq Lawmakers Want US Forces Out As Part of Deal - CommonDreams.org
I am wondering if any of the presidential Candidates, including Senator
How dare they use the democracy we imposed on them to represent the will of their filthy people. I guess we'll just have to liberate the crap out of them until they learn how to be "free" properly.
Now, what a preposterous thought, the US leaving Iraq without first extracting all the oil. Not even Obama is in favor of that one. What the hell are they thinking? To a Sunni Iraqi lawmaker: It's not about Iraq solving its problems. It's the oil stupid!
I seem to recall in the lead-up to the war that W promised us that if they asked us to leave, we would go. This sounds like they're begging us to go. We should go.
What a lunatary freeking mess. Somebody pulleeeeesseee call Loraina Bobbit. Bush needs a job singing contralto in the Crawford Baptist eunich choir.
Treaties are the law of the land, but presidential agreements are not. Treaties require Senate ratification. Will the Democrats cave in once again? Nonetheless, agreements made under threat of force cannot be enforced, so the Iraqis will not need to keep any agreement forced on them by Cheney and Bush.
I have a feeling Iraqi politics is about to turn bloody with assassinations. The opposing Iraqi Parliamentarians numbering just over half of the parliament. It seems the easy way to get that percentage under half is assassinations. It might take just 1 or 2 plus a bit higher bribe investment. It's great that the pentagram insiders (the pentagon) have not been able to reign in the Iraqi elected officials by blackmail alone... which is what is so heavily relied on here in the homeland of the Empire.
Yeah, US out of Humboldt County, too.
Ooo, I just got a tought. Why don't all the countries of the world just invoke the Rafael Correa solution for the American Military personnel stationed there.
In case you forgot or never heard, Correa will not be renewing the lease on the US air base facility in Equador. When asked what conditions would lead him to reconsider he replied,"well maybe if the US allowed a similarly sized Equadoran facility outside of Miami, he might think that offer over.
So Iraqi legislators here is the deal: You tell Bushco that if they will allow 155,000 Iraqi armed forces (with a corresponding number of "private contractors" to boot and an embassy in Washington DC the size of the Mall of America/Disney World theme park currently being rushed to completion in Bhagdad, then, okay, no problemo!
Japan, Korea, Italy, Spain, and Germany, are you listening? This could be a source of world political stabilization and economic stabilization too--(after all what else are you going to do with all that worthless paper you have been buying from us for all these decades?)
I think these human beings that we have so maltreated & killed have the capacity to separate the average American from the crime family. But, they have to wonder why we let it happen. The Bushies, no matter how much they might have liked to, have had nothing like the power Nazis gained in Germany. So, Americans are more to blame than the "good Germans".
Therefore, it is necessary that Obama (if the world can weather the next 7 months) to seek reconciliation through forgiveness. Kucinich had long called for withdrawal/reparations ala Tutu & Mandela(&, yeah, oh well let's eliminate the neoliberal crap forced on S.Africa.) I think Obama is up to this mentality; but, if he falters we must protest in millions, like at the great march on Washington in 11/69, wh/i was lucky enough to have experienced; & follow up protests (not to mention Presidents have always needed to be pushed by social movements.}
All of the movement people must acceralate their efforts. the great thing there is someone who is inclined to listen to them.
I agree with lizard. The majority of the U.S. population have gone along with this administration like a bunch of sheep. We "fringey" types will continue to be ignored.
The blame should first rest squarely on the american people, then congress, then the president and finally the elites that corrupt congress. Too many people have this upside down: the people are blameless, the congress is powerless, the president is a puppet, and the corporations are to blame.
"Oh, those poor deluded ragheads, assuming that they–or the US Congress–will have any say in the matter whatsoever."
Don't underestimate the latent power of those "rag heads". Don't liken them to our Congress. With time, patience, and their religious zealotry, they will finally have the last word, beleve me. And the longer we stay there, the harsher will be that last word. It is indeed ironic that our government will not listen to its own people, but will one day respond to the words of its enemies - which will be "get out or be driven out" - just as in Vietnam and North Korea.
Looks like McWarcriminal's dream of staying in Iraq forever and a day is taking shape.
The United States opposes submitting any new security proposal to a referendum vote of the purple fingered Iraqi people. A majority of the elected members of the Iraqi parliament oppose the security proposal. Moktada's huge Shiite faction vehemently opposes it, and the centrist Sistani appears to prefer kicking this can down the road until after both Iraq's regional elections and the US presidential election this fall. Even Maliki himself is publicly posturing (at the moment) in opposition to the planned agreement.
Thus, only George Bush, John McCain, and the other pro-war, pro-occupation politicians in the United States, and only the Iraqi politicians who are totally beholden to US backing to retain their own tenuous hold upon political power, favor signing the proposed agreement - a pact that would institutionalize a 50-base American military presence of indefinite duration, further granting our occupation forces control of Iraqi air space, a free hand to arrest, detain, or kill anyone occupation troops considered a "terrorist", and recognizing immunity from Iraqi domestic criminal laws whenever shit happens.
Whether it's in Florida or Ohio, Basra or Baghdad, Gaza or Beruit, George Bush and his GOP militarist enablers preach how they believe in popular democracy but ignore and sabotage it at every turn.
Bill from Saginaw
i look forward with eager anticipation to this important news being the lead story in the NYT and on all major news networks... umm... well...
" CanadatoImperium June 5th, 2008 10:43 am
The key factoid here seems to be that the Iraqi government wants a security deal with United States. What is being negotiated (at a preliminary stage) is the structure or composition of the security deal."
WE COULD AGREE on that, but from a, perhaps, different perspective, and it's like the article clarifies; being that the sane and true Iraqis correctly state that Iraq's not in danger from other countries, while additionally inferring that the U.S. is (also correctly, justifiably) perceived as a major security threat there. With such Iraqis and others with such perception, I agree; in full.
=============================
" andersdl June 5th, 2008 11:31 am
Now that McClone said the US will stay in Iraq for 100 years, The US will lose face if it leaves any sooner.
Life is good…for the military industrial media complex."
UPDATE: McCain diminished that 100 years he first stated and to maybe 50 years, while I believe that he more recently reduced it further, or rephrased, instead saying that the U.S. would be there for only as long as the circumstances require; and that easily could mean open-ended, no short timeframe.
Yep, the MIC gluttons are pigging out; them, and surely bankers and others who invest for profits from wars. Plenty of members of the Congress, and surely also the Senate, included.
" WmC June 5th, 2008 9:21 am
...
Oh, those poor deluded ragheads, assuming that they–or the US Congress–will have any say in the matter whatsoever.
..."
MORE DISINFO, heh?
Of course Congress has a say; just like it's always been the group or political U.S. body most strongly supporting the continuation of the criminal war of aggression on Iraq, by always providing or authorizing more, including considerably more, funding than the Bush-Cheney cabal demanded, f.e.; and the fact that Congress that has always and despotically chosen or voted to not adhere to its war-related authority, instead allowing the Bush-Cheney cabal to rein in hell on Earth. Just like this causes me to perceive the Congress as even more guilty than the Bush-Cheney cabal, for Congress has always had the authority to stop this criminal war as of the second it was launched, or to have killed any threat of it ever being launched, like as of Fall 2002, when it was already obvious that the Bush-Cheney cabal were lying their souls away, trading them to The Evil One, aka Satan, in exchange for material wealth and delusional notions of power. It was obvious enough that the authorization of Oct. 2002 was based on BS.
Hence, there's no need to contribute to covering up these facts and there's therefore no justification for pretending that the Congress has no power with the executive branch. It's right there in the U.S. Constitution, all the power that is needed being already set in "stone". Congress has been busy trying to polish that stone to the point that the wording enscribed is no longer legible.
The Congress and Senate combined or duo are worse than the front actors, Bush et al; as hellishly criminal as they are. But the Congress is the body that provided the Oct. 2002 authorization, and it was unjustifiable as of then, while it became subsequently and concretely nullified before the launching of the invasion and war; nullified because the requirements or contingencies had all been met by Saddam Hussein and the UNSC refused to authorize the invasion, while the U.S. Constitution makes these international laws the supreme law of the land of the USA.
So ....
I did watch the Iraqis' testimony, and the opening comments of the local Mideast "expert."
The subcommittee present was very small, chaired by Delahunt (D-MA). Ron Paul and Dana Rorbacher were present; and the Chair seated guest members, Republicans from AZ, GA, & Carolina.
They had a hard time adjusting to this answer: (paraphrased)
"Violence has not decreased with Bush's 'surge.' The militias' purpose and justification is to end the occupation. When the American troops leave, these militias will disband. .... We require a time line for withdrawal, in order to defuse them immediately."
And this one:
"Your attack removed one bad man--Sadam--and brought us hundreds more."
And this one:
"This proposal will be un-constitutional without legislative approval." [just as bi-lateral and other treaties require Senate approval here]
You'll have to go to a mainstream source, I'm sure, like Code Pink, to get all the details.
The expert, speaking alone with the Chair when the hearing reconvened an hour later, said he had been thinking...and now it was clear to him that these two represented the "have-not" Sunni & Shia; while Maliki and the rest represented the "haves." And since the haves benefit from the occupation, there is lots of pressure for it to continue. Surprise!
The key factoid here seems to be that the Iraqi government wants a security deal with United States. What is being negotiated (at a preliminary stage) is the structure or composition of the security deal.
So the only people who want us to stay in Iraq are...? Bush, Cheney, and Co, Inc?
Why?
Halliburton
Blackwater
KBR
ExxonMobile, etal
Dubai will be having lots of ex-administrators to stay at their luxury hotels as they follow Halliburton there!
"A majority of the Iraqi parliament has written to Congress rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that U.S. forces leave, a U.S. lawmaker said on Wednesday."
Oh, those poor deluded ragheads, assuming that they--or the US Congress--will have any say in the matter whatsoever.
Not to mention the fact that they display no gratitude for our success in bringing them peace, democracy, sanitation, electricity and clean water.
Now that McClone said the US will stay in Iraq for 100 years, The US will lose face if it leaves any sooner.
Life is good...for the military industrial media complex.