In the United States, President Bush has pushed hard for a deal to be completed by July 31. But Democrats in Congress are reluctant to sign off on an agreement before the presidential elections, and Republicans are split.
The above is from Alissa J. Rubin's "Iraq Hints at Delay in U.S. Security Deal" in this morning's New York Times. Rubin covers the basics throughout and (for the Times -- meaning officials are worshipped and their word gospel) does a strong job. Of the stories this morning, Rubin's the only one who tackles the elections -- not just in the US but the allegedly finally-going-to-take-place-in-October Iraq elections. The treaty (which is usually called a Status of Forces Agreement -- which it is not) is not popular with the Iraqi people and signing one prior to the elections could harm those pushing it. Signing it and approving it because, in Iraq, Parliament is supposed to approve it. If they don't, it would not go through. That's actually how the US Constitution mandates it be done in the United States as well but the White House thinks that by calling it a Status of Forces Agreement, they can bypass a Constitutional provision. Congress is not in agreement with that non-legal 'reading' of the law and that dispute with the White House includes Democrats and Republicans. There is bi-partisan objection to the White House attempt to circumvent the Senate and violate the US Constitution.
No link for McClatchy. Some articles we don't link to. We don't link to some reporters. That's just the way it goes. You can use the link on the left and you'll be taken to the main page for their Iraq section. You shouldn't make it through very many sentences before grasping why we're not linking. If you haven't gotten it by the time MT is informing that the treaty is just like other SOFAs, you just won't get it today.
Rubin notes that a "memo" is now being pushed. Hoshyar Zebari is among the pushers. "Memo" is thought to be short-term but probably desirable just because it sounds so 'minor.' Doug Smith and Raheem Salman's "Iraq official cites progress on U.S. security pact" (Los Angeles Times) explores that and also offers reaction within the Iraqi Parliament:
Acknowledging that remaining differences could delay an agreement, he [Zebari] said the government had short-term options, such as a memorandum of understanding to keep U.S. troops in the country under existing rules.
[. . .]
Zebari briefed members of parliament on the negotiations Tuesday. He said Wednesday that he thought he had been able to dispel some of the misunderstanding. But some ministers weren't satisfied.
"He was like an American negotiator and not an Iraqi one," said Rashid Azzawi of the Iraqi Islamic Party, part of the main Sunni bloc. "He didn't specify many details."
A supporter of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada Sadr said there was still a consensus in parliament to reject the agreement.
"It is an unequal convention between an occupier and an occupied country," said Nassar Rubaie, chief of the Sadr bloc.
Yes, who is Zebari working for? And who is giving the Iraqis legal advice? Other than the US. The US government is offering legal advice . . . on a treaty that the US wants Iraq to enter into . . . with the US. It's a conflict of interest to put it the most mildly.
Not getting that point. From Sudarsan Raghavan's "Progress Cited on U.S.-Iraq Pacts" (Washington Post):
U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said that she could not comment on the ongoing negotiations but added that they were taking place in "a constructive spirit."
Negotiations began in March on the two U.S.-drafted pacts: a status-of-forces agreement that governs the legal protections and responsibilities of U.S. troops, and a strategic framework for the overall U.S.-Iraqi political and military relationship.
Despite the progress, many hurdles remain that could delay the signing of the pacts, Zebari said. For instance, the two sides differ on the authority and level of independence of U.S. troops in future military operations.
But Zebari said U.S. negotiators were open to the idea of Iraqis controlling their own airspace, as long as they have proper air power and technology.
"Their own airspace". Who is representing the Iraqis and advising the Iraqis in this because it looks like they think they're buying the Brooklyn Bridge when they're actually getting nothing?
In a little noted AP article entitled "Mothers of 2 US soldiers say their sons left bases to hide in Puerto Rico," readers learn that Maria Santiago and Luz Eneida Morales two unnamed women in San Juan, Puerto Rico has stated their two sons are there, not going back to the US military and that the police need "to stop searching" for the men. Hiram Lozada is representing the two families. Santiago states she went to Fort Campbell ("last March) and she and her son returned to Puerto Rico while Morales went to her son's base in Colorado and returned to Puerto Rico with him.
Andre notes this from Kam Williams' "Interview: Tim Meadows" (Black Star News):
TM: I'll support him if he wins. I won't support him if he loses. [Laughs] No, I don't support anybody. It's not my thing. And if I did, I wouldn't say who it was publicly. I'll give you a hint who I'm voting for in November. It rhymes with Seder.
BSN: Oh, Ralph Nader. You don't worry about possibly wasting your vote?
TM: No, I sort of disagree with people who blame him for taking votes away from Gore in 2000. Gore still won the popular vote. Nader wasn't the reason why he lost the election. The Supreme Court cost him the election. Plus, you don't know that all those people who voted for Nader would've gone for Gore. I've met Ralph Nader and I like him. And I've met John McCain, and he's a great guy, too. I haven't met Barack, but I have met Oprah Winfrey. I would love to see some change, and whatever the country decides, I'm behind it.
Richard Winger (Ballot Access News) reports, "On July 2, the Missouri Secretary of State's office announced that the Constitution Party petition has the required 10,000 signatures needed for ballot access. The Constitution Party is the only party likely to submit a successful petition in Missouri this year. It is likely that independent Ralph Nader will also meet the requirement. The Libertarian Party had already been on the Missouri ballot automatically."
Tori notes the Nader video with CBS News.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
corey glass
the new york times
alissa j. rubin
the los angeles times
doug smith
raheem salman
the washington post
sudarsan raghavan
kam williams
tim meadows
