Majority Of Iraqi Legislators Call For Timetable For U.S. Withdrawal

In a letter to Congress, dovetailing with yesterday's testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight, thirty-one Iraqi legislators, representing a majority of the Iraq Parliament, have expressed "widespread disapproval of the proposed U.S.-Iraq security agreement if it does not include a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. military troops."

We, the undersigned members of the council, wish to confirm your concerns that any international agreement that is not ratified by the Iraqi legislative power is considered unconstitutional and illegal, in accordance with the current rulings and laws of the Iraqi Republic. Furthermore, any treaty, agreement or "executive agreement" that is signed between Iraq and the United States will not be legal and will not enter the stage of implementation without first being ratified by the Council of Representatives, in accordance with Article 61 of Section Four of the Iraqi constitution, which gives the Iraqi government's legislative power, represented by the Council of Representatives, the exclusive right to ratify international treaties and agreements.

Likewise, we wish to inform you that 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, in accordance with a declared timetable and without leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters.

The chorus of disapproval is of substantial consequence, as it will require a two-thirds majority of the Iraqi Council of Representatives to ratify the security agreement that is currently being hashed out by Iraq and the United States. Congressman Bill Delahunt, who impaneled yesterday's hearings, has co-sponsored a bill with Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro that "bars funding for any agreement that has not been approved by Congress."

Comments

[vietveter]

And when we leave we need to be sure to remove all of our naval forces from the gulf.
How long would it take to start sinking supertankers as they fill up...

Tell the saudis to have a nice day trying to defend their oil from all of their neighbors

Yea, lets just leave

[mamacat]

We don't need to be in the deserts of Iraq to defend the Straits of Hormuz.

[texastornado]

What the hell did we expect? Hugs and kisses? They want us the hell out of their country and rightly so.

[Liberoservative]

So McCain... what do you have to say to the Iraqi government?

So?????

[SRaley]

Is that Ed Rendell?

[Liberal2]

No, the democratically elected voice of the Iraqi people. You deaf, stupid, or a fascist?

[johnwinner]

Rachel Maddow expressed shock that this has not been front-page news in even the more astute media venues; but the media has long accepted this as a colonial engagement, they's coverage similar to that of the press of Victorian England dealing with revolts in Africa and Asia, except when body counts were so high governmental apologies were necessary - then the press was outraged that natives could be so inhospitable to such a superior race as the British.
One interesting point to remember here: Bush belives that in a war with Iran, the Iraqis would be cowed into neutrality; as with most of Bush's strategic assumptions, their is no evidence to suppport the belief, and quite a bit to assure that even bombing Iran will lead to a major violent quake of reponse in Iraq. (Expect Victorian outrage as the media's first response.) You reap what you sow, and we've sown nothing but disaster in Iraq. Future president Obama needsto recognize this and have plans to end the Iraq fiasco, and a probable Iraq/Iran fiasco, regardless of how bad Bush makes it for us there, watever the mdia has to say about it.

[Liberal2]

The other day, a commenter argued to refer to the Media as the Corporate Media as a more descriptive term. In this case, it really, really fits. Reporters aren't hiding the story, the media owners are because it implies long-term negative impact on their stock price.

Your general statements are inline with my thoughts.

[knowhelpnow]

It would be nice if you just told Bush you want him out and when. Just do it.

[researcher]

if they are smart they will kick our imperialistic butts out of their country.

they know what we want from them and not to give them democracy our gov does not even want that for americans.

oil man oil we want that oil. ie 40 years worth

meanwhile dumbed down americans argue over if the surge is working while iraqis are trying to figure out a way to kick our imperialistic greedy butts out of their country.

if there are dumber people on earth than most americans please point them out. bush and cheney are war criminals and our congress does nothing. wash is a den of liars and theives.

another country that hates our guts.

america the beautiful has become the america the ugly imperialists.

and most americans dont have a clue.

the super power is printing money as fast as the presses can print and borrowing money from china while the dollar falls faster than the worlds love for americans.

let the religious folks elect your leaders and this is what you get. the bush and cheney crime families.

and universities line up to hire the other crime folks like rummy and condi. ie stanford.

you parents sending your kids to stanford isnt it comforting to know rummy will be teaching your children how to invade countries for their oil.

[Pyrrhus]

"Ah, guys? We'd like our country back, now. Thanks"

[karela]

American citizens don't want it. American senate and congressional majorities don't want it. Iraqi citizens and legislatures don't want it. George W. Bush is the only one who wants it. Lord help the re-election plans of any republican in the House or Senate who in any way helps Dubya with this. We should immediately pass a law that negates Bush's ability to try to go around the legislative bodies to commit America to his goals even after his presidency is over. The republicans in the senate could stop it as they often have because the democrats have 51 votes only with Lieberman and lack the 60 to defeat a fillibuster. But, if they did that on an issue that America overwhelmingly disagrees with, their names would be known to their electorates and the democrats would make hay in this election to an even greater degree. Let's see how much they still want to kiss George Dubya!

[peterv]

Iraq's foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq's funds would lose this immunity. The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of $20bn. The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq's independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new "strategic alliance" with the United States.

The threat by the American side underlines the personal commitment of President George Bush to pushing the new pact through by 31 July. Although it is in reality a treaty between Iraq and the US, Mr Bush is describing it as an alliance so he does not have to submit it for approval to the US Senate.

[peterv]

The fact that Iraq's financial reserves, increasing rapidly because of the high price of oil, continue to be held in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is another legacy of international sanctions against Saddam Hussein. Under the UN mandate, oil revenues must be placed in the Development Fund for Iraq which is in the bank.

The funds are under the control of the Iraqi government, though the US Treasury has strong influence on the form in which the reserves are held.

Iraqi officials say that, last year, they wanted to diversify their holdings out of the dollar, as it depreciated, into other assets, such as the euro, more likely to hold their value. This was vetoed by the US Treasury because American officials feared it would show lack of confidence in the dollar.

[Daly]

Even as Iraqi dollars grow, BushCO is still committing US dollars to pay for Iraqi infrastructure.

We are footing the bill for training their military as well as providing funds for insurgence so in essence we are paying for fighters on both sides of iraq’s civil conflict.

[truthynesslover]

We are not only footing the bill the money is gong directly into bush/cheney co-conspirators pockets.They are emptying the treasury and destroying the military at the same time.Its a two-fer.

[peterv]

The official spokesman for the Iraqi Government said, "Currently, there is open talk on the need to look for alternatives, if no plan is agreed upon. These alternatives include signing a cooperation agreement instead of a long-term security agreement and staying under the United Nations protection to protect Iraqi funds, in addition to many other alternatives that are under discussion

http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/32095

[Orlando]

If I remember correctly the majority of Iraqis opposed the illegal invasion and occupation of their country also.
I'm sure that the oil companies, Israel and the US military corporations will give this letter equal consideration.
O' America, where did you go? Did you ever exist, except in our school books?

[Faith101]

Looks like to me Iran & Iraq are ready to broker there own conflict. Well looks like we need to bring this war to an end and bring our troops home. It is quite obvious that the majority of the Iraqis does not want the US over there.

[FalconerHK]

C'mon, Arianna - this is front-page news material. Obama can point to the Iraqi government's statements as reason enough to leave. We. Aren't. Welcome.

Maybe McSame can explain why we need to stay for 100 years and squander countless trillions "helping" a country that wants us to get the hell out.

[Liberal2]

"...Maybe McSame can explain why we need to stay for 100 years and squander countless trillions "helping" a country that wants us to get the hell out....."

Oh lordy, the answer is so simple! McSame wouldn't have **ANY** contributers if he agreed we should leave on the Iraqi government's timetable.