"Full Sovereignty for Iraq on June 30"

Forums: Iraq, Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Yesterday, in a news conference (sort of a news conference...speech followed by "I'll take two questions") Bush said the following...

Quote:

I detailed our plan and our strategy to transfer full sovereignty to the Iraqi people on June the 30th

. Speech

We'll note that Blair is pushing the same line...

Quote:

TONY Blair unequivocally promised the new interim government in Iraq full sovereignty after the handover on June 30.
The pledge came during prime minister's question time yesterday, in spite of the enormous challenges still facing the coalition on the ground.
Asked by Charles Kennedy if the new government would have control of Iraq's oil revenues and its prisons, Mr Blair said: "The answer to that is yes. They must have full sovereignty after the 30th June, and that will give them the right that any sovereign government has."

Link

Huh? Maybe that's why Bush allowed only two questions. Neither of which inquired, "Sir, you just said "full sovereignty", we all heard you. Could you please explain how you expect such a blatant falsehood to slip by everyone here, the press generally, and the public?"

Yet, this morning, I can find little press mention of his wording, and no criticism. Even though he began his speech with a bald-faced and obvious lie.

Quote:

The new Iraqi interim government scheduled to take control on July 1 will have only "limited sovereignty" over the country and no authority over U.S. and coalition military forces already there, senior State and Defense officials told Congress this week.

In testimony before the Senate and the House Armed Services committees, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman said the United States will operate under the transitional law approved by the Iraqi Governing Council and a resolution approved by the U.N. Security Council last October. Both those provisions give control of the country's security to U.S. military commanders.

Link

Quote:

Washington, however, is insisting that the interim Iraqi government continue to extend broad freedoms to U.S. troops operating in Iraq, including immunity from Iraqi law and the right to undertake military operations as U.S. commanders deem necessary. There may be "consultation" with the Iraqi government about U.S. military attacks, administration officials say, but U.S. troops will stay under U.S. command as will Iraqi government troops.

Link

Quote:

Members of Iraq's interim Governing Council have called for "nothing less than full sovereignty" after the planned transfer of power on 30 June.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has said Iraq would have to "give back" some power to the US in the early days.

Link

Quote:

But there is disagreement on what constitutes "all sovereignty". The US, although committed to the idea of a transfer of full sovereignty, insists it will retain military control after June 30 and appears intent on continuing to wield its immense influence over events in Iraq.

The US under-secretary of state, Marc Grossman, inadvertently confirmed this on Thursday when asked by a Congress committee about the transfer of sovereignty: "I'd say what we're talking about is limited authority."

Link

Quote:

The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said in a television interview he expected that the Iraqi defence minister and generals would put their troops "under the direction of the multi-force commander, who will be an American".

Link

Quote:

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration plans for a new caretaker government in Iraq would place severe limits on its sovereignty, including only partial command over its armed forces and no authority to enact new laws, administration officials said Thursday.

These restrictions to the plan negotiated with Lakhdar Brahimi, the special United Nations envoy, were presented in detail for the first time by top administration officials at congressional hearings this week, culminating in long and intense questioning at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday at a hearing on the goal of returning Iraq to self-rule on June 30.

Link

Please get rid of these guys.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 29,042 • Replies: 505

No top replies

well yeah but they get to have their own flag!

0 Replies

Yes! And a brand spanking new design, which many/most Iraqis don't want, as it happens.

0 Replies

The most obvious fact about the contemporary American political landscape is its profound polarization. (Too much alliteration, I know. There will be more of that in a minute...)

And that is just about the last thing the president has going for him.

There are forty-plus percent of the electorate on both sides that will stick with their guy, and that party, simply because he opposes the other side.

I think that's one of the few things keeping the president's approval ratings as high as they are. No quantity of bad news, lies, obfuscation, or mischevious mismanagement by their handlers ("Get out of the way, Emily") seems to have any effect on the enthusiasm of the supporters of the administration.

In fact, injecting caustic partisanship at this time will, I believe, steady the president and perhaps even help him in his current condition. As a result, every time I see one of Bush's negative ads followed by one of Kerry's positive ones, I smile.

For now it's de rigeur for the Democrats to have Bush be the focus -- almost exclusively -- of attention. There is, I think, a coalescing sense that President Bush is a failed president -- that key and grave decisions he has made have been wrong and that his leadership and management have been deeply flawed on many fronts.

As the lukewarm support for the Republicans melts away, those votes don't automatically transfer to the Dems, reflecting the polarity the electorate feels. The polls all reflect this too, and the perplexed state of the mainstream pundritry over the circumstance is also a source of amusement: "The President's approval ratings are sinking like a stone in the ocean, but it isn't translating into support for Senator Kerry..."

"Duh..."

Who thinks there's a single voter in the homeland who's going to just switch from Bush to Kerry without spending some time in Undecidedland?

As John Zogby has already written, this race is now Kerry's to lose.

And more importantly, the decisions John Kerry makes from now until November will determine a course of American history -- one radically divergent from its present one -- for the next ten to forty years.

I remain convinced -- and am more encouraged every single day -- that we are capable of making the correct choice, just a short 5 1/2 months away now. Cool

0 Replies

Blatham

Everyone seems to be in agreement that Brahimi will appoint a group of technocrats to run the Iraqi gov't. This is the first real step in forcing the Iraqis to take responsibility for running the day to day gov't. Am I correct so far? I know it is difficult for an idealist to look at a complex problem with a series of practical steps but give it a try

Now number 1. Who is going to provide security? Can the Iraqis do it and allow our troops to leave? If not then we must have a status of forces agreement which lays out all the procedures for cooperation between our forces and the new gov't-----you get the idea from here

Now number 2. Who will provide the money for day to day operation and who will control the purse strings. Do we dump 20 or so BILLION in their banks and say here fellas you've done so well so far that you can play with this. I don't think so-----this requires another agreement similar to the status of forces agreement, between the new American Ambassador and the Technocrats.

From here let me give you a little history about the formation of our own gov't after we defeated the British at Yorktown.

1. It required another two years to force an agreement to end the war and clear out all the British forces from New York
2. More years were required to actually convene a constitutional convention under the guise of modifying the Articles of Confederation under which they had been operating
.
3. It took 4 more years to BEGIN the ratification process and then it required a mammoth effort on the part of Hamilton, Madison and Jay to create the Federalist papers which would explain and justify the constitution to the States for ratification.

In the meantime there was no federal gov't, the soldiers hadn't been paid and the cost of the war had not been settled.(I expect to be bombarded with corrections from all you historians)But my point is it was a very lengthy and polarizing process to create our own gov't and to activate what is now considered a wonderful document---the constitution of the US.

Now in the age of 24 hours news with sound bites between commercials
we expect this all to take place in less that two years in a country that has never know self rule and if the people have never experienced it ---- how do they know if they want it?

Com'on "gimme a break"

0 Replies

perc

No one but a fool would argue the Iraqis can, as of june 30, assume full sovereignty.

That's why to say so is a Big Fat Lie.

0 Replies

Blatham, from 30th June, Iraqis will enjoy the same rights as most average Americans, apart from the chance to vote from a choice of election candidates.

0 Replies

insider

Welcome to a2k.

But I think your statement doesn't reflect reality.

Let's list:
-the right to an attorney?
-the right to insist upon a search warrant before police or troops enter the house?
-the right to have a foreign military move out if they should so choose?
-the right to establish their own civic policies?
-the right to control their natural resources (oil) and retain the profits from that resource?
-the right to bear arms and not be shot?
-the right to sue for full compensation and damages when their house is accidentally blown up and their kids killed?
-the right to try foreigners who break their laws?
-the right to write their own laws?

and etc....so no, they won't have the same rights as most average americans. They won't sovereignty.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

well yeah but they get to have their own flag!

0 Replies

dys...is this the one?

http://codshit.com/iraq-flag-new-big.jpg

0 Replies

if it works for Cheney, it works for Iraq. I don't mind.

0 Replies

Blatham, on the other side, they will have the right to worship at the temples of the Sainted George and his disciples, the blessed Dick and Donald, and to be pleasured with FREE private treatment from servicemen and women which some folks have to pay for in many other places.

What is more, the Sainted George and his pals will clean up their country for them, ALSO COMPLETELY FREE, by taking off their hands billions of barrels of that putrid smelling black stuff that keeps oozing from their desert and spoiling their environment.

Even better, they are now free to marry anyone, whatever their race, creed or color, providing they can survive the extra wedding celebrations so generously provided by the President's helicopters.

What more could a gang of towel wearing, camel chasing, heathens want anyway?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

insider

Welcome to a2k.

But I think your statement doesn't reflect reality.

Let's list:
-the right to an attorney?
-the right to insist upon a search warrant before police or troops enter the house?
-the right to have a foreign military move out if they should so choose?
-the right to establish their own civic policies?
-the right to control their natural resources (oil) and retain the profits from that resource?
-the right to bear arms and not be shot?
-the right to sue for full compensation and damages when their house is accidentally blown up and their kids killed?
-the right to try foreigners who break their laws?
-the right to write their own laws?

and etc....so no, they won't have the same rights as most average americans. They won't sovereignty.

Which of these do you have a problem with?

0 Replies

McG what have you been smoking? Go back and read blatham's post once again, and please do it after the hangover.

0 Replies

insider

Sorry, didn't realize that you were posting tongue-in-cheek. I have it now.

McG

I'll assume you mean...which rights ought to be granted. I was responding to what I thought insider was suggesting.

But of course, the key issue here is deceit. Purposeful promulgation of a falsehood, again, by this president. It's a lie he spoke, and merely the latest in a long series.

What is so depressing is how blatant the lie is. And how it wasn't challenged immediately, and that it isn't challenged by you.

Honest, accurate statements by your president to the citizens of the US, to the world, to the Iraqis is somehow not necessary? Somehow lying to everyone is justifiable? Honesty is now somehow inconvenient, thus irrelevant in a real democracy?

0 Replies

No, I am suggesting that all those rights will be available to Iraqi's post June 30.

My question was which of those do you think will not happen? Most happen now.

0 Replies

You can't be serious.

US soldiers, or Brit soldiers, will be tried for criminal acts before an Iraqi court as of July 1?

US soldiers, or any other, will need to provide a search warrant before entering a household as of July 1?

The Iraqi civil authority will be able to pass any law they deem fit, with or without US agreement come July 1?

The iraqi civil authority will be able to say "Time for US and other forces to now leave. You have two weeks" and that will come to pass as of July 1?

etc

0 Replies

Not to mention, the US is insisting it will keep control of oil revenues indefinately.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

You can't be serious.

US soldiers, or Brit soldiers, will be tried for criminal acts before an Iraqi court as of July 1? Nope. But that's not really what you said now is it? Suits can be brought, as soon as a stable court system is finished and I am sure that there is not a lack of lawyers in Iraq

US soldiers, or any other, will need to provide a search warrant before entering a household as of July 1? They had a warrant to search Chalabi's houose. They also have warrants to search other houses or they have probable cause. Just like in America.

The Iraqi civil authority will be able to pass any law they deem fit, with or without US agreement come July 1? Within the bounds of their constitution, yes. And again, this is not what you said.

The iraqi civil authority will be able to say "Time for US and other forces to now leave. You have two weeks" and that will come to pass as of July 1? I believe Bush and Blair have both said if the provisional government asks them to leave they will. I doubt they will be asked to though as they will be needed to defend and support the new government.

etc

0 Replies

Bush has said we will leave if asked.

A brilliant exit strategy, I must say! He is leaving it up to them.

Only if they are crazy would they want us to go. And, if the **** hits the fan after we've gone, he can truthfully say we served at the will of the Iraqi government.

A no-lose decision, politically. (I hope the Iraqis think about the weight of that choice.)

0 Replies

"Full Sovereignty for Iraq on June 30"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know