BAGHDAD, Oct. 21, 2008
Iraq Wants Changes Made To Security Pact
Deal Would Allow U.S. Troops To Stay For 3 More Years; Cabinet Asks For Unspecified Revisions
-
A U.S soldier cuts plastic handcuffs off an Iraqi detainee, in Baghdad's southern Dora neighborhood, on Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2008. (AP Photo/Karim Kadim)
-
Interactive Battle For Iraq The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
-
Photo Essay Week In Iraq Photos A daily diary with scenes of the latest attacks and snapshots from the effort to rebuild a nation.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the Cabinet decided amendments were needed to win "national acceptance" for the draft, which must be approved by parliament before the current U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year. Without a new agreement, there would be no legal basis for the U.S.-led military mission.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his ministers spent over five hours reviewing the draft agreement before deciding Tuesday to request changes, al-Dabbagh said. Their decision came two days after al-Maliki's own Shiite coalition expressed reservations about the accord, hammered out after months of intensive negotiations.
Al-Maliki aide Sami al-Askari said several members of the Shiite coalition wanted to remove language allowing the government to ask U.S. forces to stay beyond the end of 2011 and wanted clarification of some parts of the jurisdiction clause.
The agreement would call for U.S. troops to leave the cities by the end of June and withdraw from the country by Dec. 31, 2011 unless the government asked them to stay. The draft would also provide limited Iraqi jurisdiction over soldiers and contractors accused of major, premeditated crimes committed off post and off duty.
Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told reporters last week that it would be difficult to reopen negotiations, which have gone on for most of this year.
But Al-Maliki wants his coalition Cabinet to sign off before sending it to parliament. Al-Maliki fears he could end up politically isolated if he pushes forward with the agreement without solid national backing.
Later Tuesday, Al-Dabbagh issued a brief statement saying the Cabinet also was "calling on everyone to view the agreement objectively and responsibly and to consider the public interest."
He was apparently referring to groups that have rejected the agreement outright, like the 30-member bloc in parliament loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
The Cabinet will meet again in a few days to consider the proposed changes and forward them to the Americans, the spokesman said. He refused to specify the changes or say when the Cabinet would meet again.
On Tuesday, the chairman of parliament's foreign affairs committee, Shiite cleric Humam Hmoudi, told reporters that there was broad agreement that parts of the draft needed changing.
"What they (the Americans) gave by their right hand, they took it away by the left," Hmoudi said. "They brought new conditions and limits such as in the article about leaving the cities. They are still agreed to leave by next June but added that this will be connected to the security situation on the ground."
He ruled out any chance that parliament would sign off on the deal before the Nov. 4 U.S. election.
Zebari agreed, telling Al-Arabiya television late Monday that "I don't think it would be possible" to win ratification by the time of the American election.
In other developments:
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 34 Comments
- The Times of India August 2007 reported : " Iran, Iraq signed an agreement to build pipelines for the transfer of Iraqi crude oil and oil products." Under the deal crude will be refined and sent back to Iraq. Bush opposed this agreement and wanted the Iraqi Parliment to accept and sign a U.S. designed oil law that would result in huge profits for BIG OIL.
Iraqi oil workers and 63% of Iraqis polled are opposed to the Bush law and prefer a hands off Iraq oil policy.
On January 26, 1998 in a letter to the President the PNAC asked Clinton to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein.. Clinton refused their request. - Reply to this comment
- The PNAC s goal has always been world market domination. In concert with Big Oil the Godfather of the PNAC George HW Bush held meetings with the Saudis at Walker Point in Maine prior to the Iraq invasion.
Iraq with the Russians were the Saudis main competition in global Oil markets. 2.5 million barrels a day of Iraqi crude was sold cheap in world markets angering the Saudis and Big Oil. Iraq was one of seven countries on the administrations hit list. Taking out Iraq did take out the competition enabling Big Oil and the Saudis free reign to drive oil prices up.
The Russians are not to blame. Blame the PNAC.......
Paul Wolfowitz,Don Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, George Bush, Richard Cheney, Eliot Cohen. Zalmay Khalilzad, Steve Forbes, Donald Kagan, Pete Rodman, Henry S Rowen, Dan Quale, William J.Bennett, Jeb Bush, they are all members of the PNAC Project for a New American Century. - Reply to this comment
- JackP32 wrote: We saved them from further mass murders by Saddam Hussein.
-------------------
Well, we had to slaughter a few hundred thousand of them in the process but, what the heck, sh*t happens! - Reply to this comment
- THATS NOT TRUE 67% OF THE MILITARY IS NOT VOTING FOR MCCAIN YOU HAD BETTER CHECK THAT AGAIN.
- Reply to this comment
- Just tell Iraq we are counting up the bill and you have money or oil so now how much will it cost to stay 3 more years well looks like it takes all your money and all your oil. Look who is running the show hear anyway.
- Reply to this comment
- all this rhetoric about "winning the war" is bunk. iraq and afghanistan are ruining our country and the fighting is ruining their''s as well. come home troops, we love you, but we have to take care of the U.S.A. first - then we can go help others. we''re bankrupting our country to stave off the inevitable - national self determination. what do those countries have that we need? are they really so important to our national security? if we leave - they''ll fight each other and forget about us. we''re the cop in a domestic dispute - they''re turning on us. these are not winnable wars. there is no victory only defeat.
- Reply to this comment
- This article says:
Al-Maliki aide Sami al-Askari said several members of the Shiite coalition wanted to remove language allowing the government to ask U.S. forces to stay beyond the end of 2011 and wanted clarification of some parts of the jurisdiction clause.
The agreement would call for U.S. troops to leave the cities by the end of June and withdraw from the country by Dec. 31, 2011 unless the government asked them to stay.
2009--2011 somebody''s not got it right. - Reply to this comment
- Biden just told a rally that Bush is following Obama''''s plan to get out of IRAQ by June 2009.
Sombody''''s lying.
Posted by JoJo9357 at 05:00 PM : Oct 21, 2008
How so?
In February, Obama came out with his plan for a 16 month timetable.
Al Maliki said he agreed with it.
McCain said he agreed with Al Maliki.
A month later, bush is negotiating to get us out of Iraq by June 2009 - 16 months after Obama made his first comments!!! - Reply to this comment
- Hell, everybody is telling Republicans to stick it up their arses.
- Reply to this comment
- Biden just told a rally that Bush is following Obama''s plan to get out of IRAQ by June 2009.
Sombody''s lying. - Reply to this comment
- "Critics say the Osprey, which was designed to replace transport helicopters, lacks firepower for defense in heavy combat. But pilots say the Osprey makes up for that in speed, which one of them says can take the plane "like a bat out of hell" to altitudes safe from small-arms fire."
lolll...so, it is useful on flat terrain with minimal vegetation.
If somebody has cover enough to fire on it, methinks it would be kind of hard to miss when landing, landed, or taking off. - Reply to this comment
- The US should make it clear that there won''t be any more agreements or amendments to those of understanding until they begin paying the US back from all of their stashed war booty, as well as sending us oil free of charge. The US should also make it clear when it''s in our interests and not the deliberate dragging Iraqi feet who should have been advanced in their road to recovery.
- Reply to this comment
- Is that why 67% of the military is voting for McCain?
Posted by hillaryin012 at 02:01 PM : Oct 21, 2008
Still spreading that lie, even though I''ve already quashed it? - Reply to this comment
- Better yet, ask God Himself directly and Jesus, if you''''re a Christian. They have all your answers.
Posted by prometheus41 at 03:46 PM : Oct 21, 2008
Didn''t "god" tell bush to invade Iraq in the first place? - Reply to this comment
- Well ... Bush said we brought them democracy. So ... let them vote on whether we stay or not. Straight up and down vote ... no stay for a while vote ... do they want us there or not. Bet NOT!
- Reply to this comment
- Iraq Wants Changes Made To Security Pact ...
America wants a change of direction in our White House. It''s Obama time. - Reply to this comment
- GOSH how petty of them people. How dare they ask some rules against a country that invaded them, killed and maimed their women and children, all to allow western big oil back into their country.
- Reply to this comment
- Where is the money from their sale of oil that was supposed to reimburse the US for the costs of the war? We saved them from further mass murders by Saddam Hussein. Who got the money?
- Reply to this comment
- Is that why 67% of the military is voting for McCain?
Posted by hillaryin012 at 02:01 PM : Oct 21, 2008
Oh for sure.
I always vote for someone I know who will or has voted against my Cost of Living Increases and my benefits. - Reply to this comment
- tell Iraq to shove it up its ***, and lets get the hell out of there.
national acceptance? who the hell is running the show with our kids lives? It should be AMERICA. Grow a spine and tell IRAQ that we are going to take all their ******* oil if they don''t step it up a ton. - Reply to this comment
