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

[MessageForceMultiplier]

The unspoken message is clear: elect Barack Obama. Sorry, Mrs Clinton, Iraq's 35 delegates all go to Mr Obama.

[allheart72]

After reading this article...­it seems that everyone is on the same page except McCain.

[3Gs]

This should send shudders of fear down the spines of everyone intamately involved in the military industrial complex. So sorry guys, you might have to find another war to peddle your goods. Hehehe

[blueshield]

puhleeese - don't feed the tigers!

[drkazmd65]

Shhhh,...d­on't give them any more reason to pick a fight with Iran,...

[TheApeMan]

How can McCain and the rest of the Repubs now say we need to stay there?
They want us to leave!

[TrixtersMom]

Yes! They want to take control of their own country! We should respect their wishes, and SOON!

[outnow]

We're spreading democracy even if it kills every man, woman and child in Iraq. Sometimes you have to destroy a country in order to save it. Just like we did in Vietnam. Now that's democracy in action: take their oil while we save their country. After all, God is on our side. That's what Manifest Destiny is all about. If the savages have something we want or need, just civilize the savages by bombing them. Whose oil is it after all? The oil majors and the citizens of the United States need the oil for their multinational corporations. Might makes right. Now that's democracy! He who has the gold rules.

[Nonamnesiac]

This one is simple. The Democratic Congress has funding before it. Simply provide no funds unless it's for immediate, safe withdrawal of all US troops and contractors. And both Houses should pass a resolution requiring that prior to whatever agreement is reached, if it requires US troops to remain in Iraq, that it must be ratified as a treaty prior to it becoming effective, just like the Iraqi Parliament has done, although I figure that might change as the guns of the surge gets pointed at lraqis' legislattors' heads.

[musselmanm]

I say, lets leave Blackwater there. Give them a no bid contract and no support from the US whatsoever!

[Raymondf]

No your wrong We leave no American over their. Let them rebuild their own country with only money to help. After all the suicide bombers, mostly Iraqi's did most of the damage to their own country. Give them 100,000,000 and get out.

[Kache]

I'm with you musselmanm! Bring the troops home - leave Blackwater behind - let the Iraqis do whatever they want with them down in that dungeon cell at Abu Ghraib.

[Agent420]

When Obama ends the war in Iraq it will be time for the National Guard to do what they were chartered to do. Protect Americans on American soil. Their use in Iraq is unforgivable. Those guys did not sign up for that. They have to come back first. Contractors are a laugh. They cost 3 to 10 times as much as a soldier to do the same job. Though they do serve two functions. They keep down the count of soldiers over there and make additional profits for their Republican 'elitist' bosses. Plus they get to kill just for the fun of it. I guess they hired all the mental patients let out by the Republican god, Raygun. Leave them there so that the Iraqis can treat them the same way they were treated by them. I'm sure that will put the Iraqis in a better mood and they will like us again.
In addition, the Coast Guard should be doing what they are chartered to do, protect the coast of America and rescue people in trouble. Besides, before they were given the impossible job of stopping drugs from coming into the country, they were the source of the best pot around.
America in Iraq is like Germany in France in the '30s.

[JinnRikki]

I'm all for pulling out of Iraq, but we better have a viable alternative to Mid East oil before hand. I guarantee with out our troops there they will soak us for every nickel on a barrel of oil out of revenge. Nice legacy dumbya.

[Agent420]

What are they doing now?

[Marlyn]

USA gets MOST of its oil from Canada.

[BADEN]

UH oh.....wha­t do I hear? The patter of little democratic feets in motion?

"Watch what ya wish for, ya just might get it"...

Oh, the irony....t­he irony!

http://www.republican-elephant.com/dick-cheney-iraq-poll.jpg

[MyNameIsJames]

Obama needs to come out and say that if he is elected, he will not honor this agreement to keep American troops permanently stationed in Iraq. Furthermore- he should challenge George Bush's authority to make such a commitment without Congressional approval.

[NoFactsJustTruth]

Perhaps the Iraq legislators have now figured out that any of them signing the fake treaty and criminal security deal with preznutz duhbya for permanent U.S. bases there will be hunted down by their fellow Iraqis, and no doubt dealt with in a fashion after their worst customs.

[jeskrull]

Congrats to Iraq's parliament. How are the hawks going to handle this one? Iraqis should have control of their own country (or three countries once we get out).

[izAriver]

And yet, this administration continues it's criminal activities unabated. Sorry Iraq, when bushit, shootemintheface cheney and dumbsfeld said they were bringing freedom they didn't mean for you. It was freedom for their corporate fascist cronies to exploit your country. Makes me sick to hear any of those repugnicans utter the word democracy.

[PuppaX]

Hear, hear!

[incontempt]

Only George Bush, Dick cheney, halliburton, KBR and the likes of these wish for this agreement.­...only profiteer's that profit at the expense of innocent life. My opinion,..­.screw their investment, their investers, and their government colluder's­...this is illegal and intolerabl­e...stand up for your rights of free government iraq, and we in US do will do our best to hold these treasonous pigs accountable.

[Marlyn]

"screw their investment"

Absolutely. All of this talk about "protecting American assets" is really just about the corporations stealing Iraqi oil.