EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Picture of the Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Bradley Manning is Off Limits at SF Gay Pride Parade, but Corporate Sleaze is Embraced
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
- You and Your Family Are Guinea Pigs for the Chemical Corporations
- Spreading Community and Love of Books 'Little Free Libraries' Sprout Worldwide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Maliki Says Talks on Iraq-US Security Pact Deadlocked
AMMAN - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said Friday that negotiations with the United States on a long-term security pact are deadlocked because of concern the deal infringes Iraqi sovereignty.
"We have reached an impasse because when we opened these negotiations we did not realise that the US demands would so deeply affect Iraqi sovereignty and this is something we can never accept," he said in Amman.
"We cannot allow US forces to have the right to jail Iraqis or assume, alone, the responsibility of fighting against terrorism," Maliki told Jordanian newspaper editors, according to a journalist present at the meeting.
The White House, meanwhile, vowed to pursue the talks while respecting Iraq's sovereignty.
"We are not sure of the exact words he (Maliki) used, we intend to continue to work with the Iraqis on the negotiations," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
"We fully respect their sovereignty -- it is, after all, what we fought for in the liberation," she said, referring to the March 2003 US-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.
Criticism has been rife in Iraq and in neighbouring Iran over the deal to cover the foreign military presence in Iraq when a UN mandate expires at the end of this year.
US President George W. Bush and Maliki agreed in principle last November to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by the end of July.
Maliki told Iraqi community leaders in Jordan that the talks were not over.
"These negotiations will continue until we find common ground that is acceptable for the Iraqi side and the other party," he said, adding that both sides were looking at "new ideas."
"The life of a nation, its future and its higher interests are at stake. And as long as there is no national consensus it will not happen," he said. "If parliament does not ratify it, it will not be."
One of the staunchest opponents of US military presence in Iraq, radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said in a statement on Friday he plans to form a new armed group to fight American forces.
Bush has acknowledged rifts with Baghdad. "I think we'll end up with a strategic agreement with Iraq. There's all kinds of noise in their system and our system," he said on Wednesday.
In February, Bush said the United States would seek a military presence in Iraq for "years" but pledged it would not establish permanent bases.
His administration has said any deal would be similar to more than 80 such pacts which Washington has with other nations, governing the scope of US operations and providing protection for its soldiers.
It says the pact will not specify troop levels, establish permanent bases in Iraq or tie the next president's hands.
Iraqi lawmaker Mahmud Othman said on Friday that Washington appeared to be flexible but there were some sticking points, especially the immunity being offered to American soldiers and private security guards.
"Americans are open to lift the immunity as far as the foreign security contractors are concerned but not for their soldiers," said Othman, a Kurd.
The immunity issue has been hotly debated since the killing of 17 Iraqis by guards from the US Blackwater security company in Baghdad last year.
Othman said the Iraqis also wanted the United States to offer long-term protection to Iraq from any "foreign invasion", adding that the demand was a concern for Washington's arch-foe Tehran.
More than five years after the invasion, around 150,000 US troops are still posted in the war-torn country after Bush ordered a "surge" of five extra brigades to combat escalating violence.
These brigades are now being withdrawn, with the final due home in July but the number of soldiers still in Iraq remains above the pre-surge level of close to 130,000.
© 2008 Agence France Presse
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
18 Comments so far
Show AllHow about a daily contest for "Lie of the Day?" My nomination for June 13, 2008 is Ms. Perino's, "We fully respect their sovereignty -- it is, after all, what we fought for in the liberation."
It is SO good to see the Iraqis stand up and refuse to be treated as unwilling abettors in whatever episodes of aggression Bush, Cheney and Friends have in mind next. Iraq MUST NOT sign this so-called security agreement and it MUST NOT sign off on the oil agreements giving power over all new drilling for 20-30 years to the oil companies chosen by Cheney and his secret Energy Task Force over half a year prior to 9/11.
Interesting how our conservative friends have heartburn over "illegals" peacefully threatening American "sovereignty" with their labor... while trumpeting the not-so-peaceful American destruction of Iraq's sovereignty. Mark,
It was to be expected that the Shiites would be against the pact. The Sunni's, whose coffers are filled with US largesses would be officially against but only halfheartedly. The really big surprise is that the Kurds are unequivocally against! That is the death-knell of the pact as proposed by Bush. The anti-war movement is now in Iraq, not in the US!
So, the big match is about the simplest of issues:
Telling the truth!
It does not look good for our side.
If we, further, lose credibility, nothing our Government says will be believed by them, there, or others, elsewhere, or us, here.
What a conundrum!
---------
Could it be...
Could it be that this clarifies the old Philosophical issue "What is the Truth?"
That there is a hierarchy of values and the highest is Telling The Truth, like Mom and Dad, said.
Yes, at times, we have all failed at telling the truth but, in this case, the deception is not only AGAINST them, the deception is AGAINST US!
Where is McCain in all this?
Where are the Republican Candidates that in November will claim to be against this deception because they really, and truly, do not want more Americans to die, here or there. Or, so they will say in November.
What must we make of the ruse:
"We can either kill them there or kill them here!"
This is NOT a war to convert, like Communism, or to subjugate, like Hitler but, simply to KILL'EM.
Or, something like it.
Does this policy have a name? Like Barbarism?
The original Barbarians ended the Roman Empire and this was followed by the Dark Ages.
Is this a Wake Up Call, or what?
Prime Minister al-Maliki:
I feel I might be able to offer what should appear to be the most obvious solution as it pertains to protection of the sovereignty of your nation.
You tell the U.S. to GO HOME!
Could it be any plainer or simpler than that?
Can it be any plainer or simpler than that?
That photo---I don't know whether to curse or cry.
"We fully respect their sovereignty — it is, after all, what we fought for in the liberation," she said, referring to the March 2003 US-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.
it's the abuse of that sentiment that keeps the US government and media using the phrase "the war in iraq" it has at least some positive resonance with the voting public...of course as the above statement also admits...that war was won. it is over...finito done this parrot is dead...it is not just resting..etc etc..
where-as the PM of Iraq knows the truth..
"We cannot allow US forces to have the right to jail Iraqis or assume, alone, the responsibility of fighting against terrorism," Maliki told Jordanian newspaper editors,"
what is being fought now is "the war on terror" (tm)
which is far less palatable to the voting public...
and again if the allied forces in iraq are fighting against terrorism...then they are doing so at the bequest of the Iraqi government....to protect the Iraqi government from terrorism and any attempt to undermine the Government of Iraq by no legitimate means....and the Iraqi government is asking them to stop or curtail "the war on terror" (tm)
don't let the US government and the media get away with calling what is happening in Iraq "the war in iraq"..it is grossly misleading..
it's the "war on terror" (tm)
something else entirely politicaly and in reality...
We own Iraq. We bought it with the blood of our soldiers and the blood of the Iraqi combatants and noncombatants alike (the kid shot through the head while innocently looking out the window).
The Iraqis have no say in what happens in their country because it is no longer their country. If it was their country they would have the power to kick us out.
Because they cannot kick us out Iraq belongs to us. Support the Troops. God bless America.
The US imperialist military juggernaut that invaded and occupied Iraq is like The Man Who Came to Dinner.
The ephemeral and incredible expectations that it would essentially be a quick smash & grab caper evaporated even before the US-staged Toppling of the Sadaam Statue.
And now the host country is in the excruciating bind of wishing like hell that this imposing and overbearing Uncle Sam relinquishes his domination of their house, which he's turned utterly upside-down and ruined-- but is also desperately and fearfully treading lightly, to ensure that the unwelcome, toxic, and parasitic guest doesn't destroy what's left of the house when it departs, and leaves the host a little something for its troubles.
It's a sticky situation.
tailcap..
"The Iraqis have no say in what happens in their country because it is no longer their country. If it was their country they would have the power to kick us out."
well that's one way of looking at it i suppose..."all property is theft" eh?
how terribly interesting
Please explain your thinking Chris B, what is your point? That we are in Iraq because the majority of Iraqis want us there?
tailcap..
"Please explain your thinking Chris B, what is your point? That we are in Iraq because the majority of Iraqis want us there?"
sorry i've just lost the will to live...unless you were being ironic... perhaps?
I'm at a loss to understand you. I am saying we are in Iraq in an illegal occupation to steal oil and position ourselves in bases in order to squash any opposition to our hegemonic designs in the Middle East. The politicians drape themselves with the flag and the Bible. What are you saying? Stop playing games.
oops, got it, yes, being ironic
tailcap..
i agree....misunderstood your original slant..thought you were being "literal" rather than ironic
cool, glad we're on the same wavelength. Happy blogging!
Precisely the kind of thing al-Maliki says before he bends over and takes it.
lol Corvo..quite so!!....such is the state of international "diplomacy" as conducted by lone nations.. it's possibly why such negotiations should be left to the UN as they are bound by the statutes of international law! held acountable by the virtue of many different nations argueing both sides of the issues..and not hampered by the fear of appearing "weak"