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

[rollingdivision]

The petition formalizes a widely held sentiment among many legislators — and among Iraqis in general — that American troops should withdraw as soon as possible, though not before Iraqi forces are prepared to assume control of the country’s security.

Even Mr. Sadr has cautioned against an immediate withdrawal, although he has been in the vanguard of Iraqi leaders demanding an American departure, and last month withdrew his six ministers from the cabinet in protest over Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s resistance to timetables.

From the NYT, "From the NYT, "The petition echoes elements of the debate in Washington over troop withdrawals from Iraq. Like the petitioners, many Democratic lawmakers have demanded a timetable for a withdrawal, over the opposition of President Bush and Mr. Maliki, though the president has accepted the idea of nonbinding benchmarks.

But in another respect THE PETITION BRINGS THE MAJORITY OF IRAQI LEGISLATORS INTO AGREEMENT WITH THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: BOTH ARGUE THAT AN AMERICAN WITHDRAWAL SHOULD DEPEND ON THE READINESS OF IRAQI TROOPS.

Mr. Araji said the legislative committees drafting a bill had asked the interior and defense ministers for an estimated timeline for the development of effective Iraq security forces."

."

[Lemeritus]

Just curious... where in the petition does it "ARGUE THAT AN AMERICAN WITHDRAWAL SHOULD DEPEND ON THE READINESS OF IRAQI TROOPS"? I can't seem to find it.

Sovereignty is the issue in Iraq, including "the [US] right to arrest, the right to enter and leave the country, the extent of immunity granted to US security soldiers and contractors while underlining the necessity to find a clear mechanism regarding the entrance of departure of US Forces such as imposing visas or setting passages and airports." (Alsumaria)

Accountability should be the issue in the US, including Bush's commitment to a long-term security role in Iraq without congressional approval -- i.e., those pesky signing statements and executive agreements.

On the one hand, the Iraqis seem to be reaching out to the UN to extend a BIlateral security arrangement and, on the other, pushing away from any UNIlateral US authority.

[truthynesslover]

We cant trust Maliki and any of the parties affilated with him.They would love us to stay forever,they are all getting rich stealing our money.

[Insideout143]

That's a good slap in the face to Bush/McCain for forcing their imperial democracy. Even they in Iraq want change!

Go ahead McCain, 'splain that one to us.

[kayokayo]

31 legislators is not a majority of the Iraqi Parliment. Sadr barely has 30 legislators in his minority party. It's things like this and their repetition that makes MSM disdain and belittle the Blogosphere. Let's be careful out there.

[bitabingbitabangbitaboom]

Oh Please.................take a Standing 8 Count

[Sundialsvc4]

What? The puppets are resisting the strings?

[elbzee]

HOORAY! Well done Iraqi Parliment! Way to be democratic! HOLD STRONG AGAINST THE OCCUPIERS!!

[splendidbeast]

When we said we wanted democracy in Iraq, we didn't mean that we wanted them to just go and make decisions on their own.

[gbht12]

MCBUSH ARE YOU LISTENING!! THEY WANT US TO LEAVE!!!!

HELLO, anyone in there MCSANE, BUSHIE!! Anyone hear them????

[AmandaRuth]

i wonder if the network news will report this - or will they ignore it, just like they ignored the Senate hearing on the lies leading us into Iraq, which happened today.

[ChicagoBob]

!

We have a lot of stuff over there but if we worked night and day (I am sure the locals would help.) we could be out in a few months.

!

[Tropiholic]

More bad new for Mccasket today regarding Iraq.

[JackLivigni]

It's about time! They need to take care of their own country. We can provide help in varioius ways, but not militarily. Our military job is done. We cannot win the peace in Iraq with our military might. It is disturbing to see the United States military referred to as "the occupier."

[dadw5boys]

Win the peace? Bush don't want peace he wants turmoil so he can keep Soldiers there.

[Canukistani]

On being informed Cheney was heard to say 'So...?'.

[reasonshouldrule]

Why isn't this story on the front page of the New York Times? Why isn't CNN talking about it? It's ridiculous that the only place we can get the complete story on things is the Huffington Post.

[AbstractImp]

Do we read this right, that the Legislature in Iraq has rights that our Congress does not?

Oh, I guess that would be if you get your civics facts from the Bush lawyers.

Does the agreement still hold in the US if the Iraqis refuse to ratify it, and instead certify it unconstitutional?

As for poor Iraq. . . We cannot begin to apologize for

the murder of one million of your citizens.

the displacement and destruction of the lives of two to three million more.

the absolute obliteration of most of your nation's infrastructure.

the lawless power vacuum we created, resulting in massive civil and sectarian unrest.

the humiliation of an extended occupation of your nation.

the disgraceful fact of our administrators profiteering off their war crimes.

Liberators, indeed... I ask of Iraq only this, please . . .

KICK US OUT !!!!!

[lthuedk 1]

McBush says, UP YOURS

http://www.light-to-dark.com/McBush.html

[betz55]

For the love of God, leave already ! Iraq cannot let Cheney and Bush push this through. I am holding my breath.

[majormoderate]

please hold your breath until we leave iraq.