Thread: Iraq/Dinar News until 5/23/07 Midnight CST

"is delaying the interpretation of the law according to its discretion"

You'd think they'd just pass the HCL to shut up the international community then sit on it for months while they debate revisions. Uh oh - I don't want to give them any ideas.

Iraqi Papers Thursday: Impasse
Debate over Constitutional Reforms at a Deadlock
By AMER MOHSEN Posted 1 hr. 3 min. ago


Aljazeera.net reported that Kirkuk may become a “region” –- unaffiliated with Kurdistan or the rest of Iraq -– for the next half-decade until a decision is made on its final status. Aljazeera.net quoted a Turkmen deputy, 'Abbas al-Bayyati, who said that the “constitutional revision committee” prefers a solution that will temporarily alter the status of Kirkuk until a final referendum can be effectuated in a better political context.
Kirkuk is one of the main issues preventing the Iraqi legislature from reaching an agreement over a proposed bundle of constitutional revisions.
According to the current Iraqi constitution, a referendum is to be held in Kirkuk before the end of this year to decide on whether the city’s population wants to unite with the Kurdistan Region or remain in its current province- most observers anticipate a clear “yes” vote in case the referendum is held in the near future. However, the Arab and Turkmen minorities in the city firmly reject the affiliation of their city with Kurdistan, and fear that the referendum may endanger their position as non-Kurdish minorities in what is quickly becoming a largely Kurdish city.
Protests by non-Kurdish minorities and mutual threats of violence have made the application of article 140 of the Iraqi constitution (relating to the status of Kirkuk) extremely difficult. According to al-Bayyati, a decision is likely to be reached whereby Kirkuk becomes a “region” for the next 5-7 years until a popular referendum is possible and carries less risks of instability.
On a related front, al-Hayat reported that the Iraqi parliament remains unable to move forward on the proposed constitutional amendments. Many consider the amendments to be the last chance to salvage the “political process” in Iraq. Broadly speaking, the potential revisions to the constitution seek to widen political representation and resolve some of the issues that have been paralyzing the Iraqi political scene for the last years.
Oil, de-ba'thification, the identity of Iraq, and Kirkuk are some of the more heated topics that are being currently negotiated by the political elite. The political pressure on Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, al-Hayat said, is two-fold: on the one hand, Iraqi parties remain uncompromising over the vital issues under discussion, and negotiations are at a stalemate; at the same time, the US is heavily pressuring the Maliki government to hasten the passage of the amendments, the newspaper said. The committee charged with revising the constitution has asked for more time to refine its proposals, while talks over the controversial themes of de-ba'thification and the widening of political representation are currently “suspended until further notice,” the newspaper claimed.
Al-Mada claimed that a plan by Iyad 'Allawi to withdraw his bloc’s ministers from the government was botched when he learned that the ministers in question will refuse to leave their cabinet seats.
The newspaper alleged that 'Adnan al-Bajaji, a senior member of 'Allawi’s Iraqiya coalition, came to Baghdad to announce the withdrawal of the coalition from the cabinet, but was forced to postpone the announcement fearing non-compliance from his ministers.
Al-Mada and Az-Zaman reported over the last few days that 'Allawi’s plan is to announce the creation of a new major alliance in the Iraqi parliament (seeking to topple al-Maliki’s cabinet) in parallel with his coalition’s withdrawal from al-Maliki’s government.
Lastly, Az-Zaman said that a “group of teenagers” from Karbala are being pursued by the police for hacking into the Iraqi telephone network and calling random homes with death threats. The newspaper said that the individuals in question used their technical proficiency to infiltrate the telephone network and make anonymous calls to families in Karbala with various threats. The police was able to capture one of the members of the group, al-Mada said, and discovered that they are Iraqi teenagers with no links to terrorist organizations.

IraqSlogger: Iraqi Papers Thursday: Impasse

Originally Posted by www.xealthy.com

Let the man have a thought, it's called freedom of expression.
I believe you freely express yourself often. . So give it a break! Yourself. Lighten up Susie you've been on the thread too long. Relax, have a cocktail or 2, take a bubble bath, dream of the RV party. but give Bob a break, he's the first one to defend you most of the time in this no mans land.

Bob, express yourself!!!!!! I'm patient as the next person.
Today, Tomorrow, the next Year!!! Im ready and waiting, and certainly don't have all my eggs in on basket.

i sat down here about an hour ago and have prepared a meal and washed clothing in that hour as well so im rather sure i havent spent too much time on the thread. i just get very disappointed at the constant negative little comments that arent constructive to anyones psyche. as far as comments youve always got a reprimand for me when you dont approve of mine so live and let live.

MENAFN has kinda been stuck
at "1200" IQD number for a few day
MENAFN - Middle East North Africa . Financial Network Currency Charts,Currency Update,Money Markets,Analysis,Projection

Bush wins Iraq showdown with Congress by Stephen Collinson
Wed May 23, 9:47 AM ET



WASHINGTON (AFP) - Anti-war Democrats Tuesday shelved their crusade to condition Iraq war funding on troop withdrawals, but denied handing President George W. Bush a multi-billion dollar victory.

ADVERTISEMENT

Instead of homecoming soldiers, party leaders reluctantly accepted the first congressionally approved political and security benchmarks for the Iraqi government, a plan ridiculed just last week by a top Democrat as "weak."

They vowed to renew their battle to end US involvement in the war through defense bills looming in the next few months and claimed their weeks-long constitutional showdown had boxed Bush in as never before.

House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) presented the outline of the new funding bill, worth around 100 billion dollars, to her restive party caucus Tuesday, billing it as "another stage in the sequencing of ending this war."

Pelosi said September was now the real "moment of truth for this war" as several spending bills come up as well as a report on the progress of Bush's troop surge strategy by top war general, David Petraeus.

Some top Republicans have already said they will either need to see progress by then, or sweeping changes in US strategy in the war, which has killed more than 3,400 US soldiers.

Bush has vowed never to accept timelines for withdrawal, billed by Republicans as "surrender dates" and vetoed a previous 124-billion-dollar spending bill because it included such mechanisms.

Bush was expected on Wednesday to present newly declassified intelligence charging that Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden told the group's late leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to plan terror strikes on the United States.

The bin Laden-Zarqawi link was made in secret documents that were declassified Tuesday and shored up Washington's argument that it is fighting in Iraq to prevent the country from becoming a new "sanctuary" for Al-Qaeda.

The House was to vote, probably on Thursday, on a war funding package and companion legislation containing extra domestic spending and including hurricane relief funding and other spending hikes, included to placate liberal Democrats.

The Senate would then be asked to vote on the package as a whole, said Democratic Representative David Obey (news, bio, voting record), who has been locked in talks with Republicans, top senators and the White House on the funding package.

Democrats, who control both chambers of Congress but lack sufficient votes to override a presidential veto, dismissed the notion that their reluctant dropping of withdrawal timelines handed Bush a hard-won victory.

"I don't think there's any way you could stretch, saying whatever we decide to do in this legislation is a defeat," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) said.

"For heaven's sakes, look where we've come. We have come a long, long ways."

Leaders said the budget language would mirror a Republican-backed amendment passed last week and accepted by the White House, which would require Bush to report to Congress on progress in Iraq in July and September.

The bill, framed by Republican Senator John Warner (news, bio, voting record), also raises the prospect of the Iraqi government forfeiting non-military financial aid if it fails to reach a set of political and security benchmarks.

Though Reid ridiculed the bill last week as "weak," he said it would mark an important step toward ending the war.

"If that's all there is, it's a lot more than the president ever expected he'd have to agree to."

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) meanwhile said the chamber appeared ready to pass a bill "without a surrender date."

But there was immediate anger from the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party.

"I cannot support a bill that contains nothing more than toothless benchmarks and that allows the president to continue what may be the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nations history," said Democratic Senator Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record).

Democratic leaders upped the ante in talks with the White House on Friday, again insisting on the need for a date for troop withdrawals to begin -- though offering Bush the power to waive the requirement.

But all along, they said they would get a bill funding the troops until the end of September to the president's desk before leaving on a week-long recess on Friday.

There was no immediate reaction from the White House, which earlier cited the need to keep ongoing negotiations under wraps

Compromise Iraq funding bill on track to pass this week
POSTED: 3:14 p.m. EDT, May 23, 2007
Story Highlights• Democrats call compromise bill a 'giant step' toward ending Iraq war
• Republicans happy Dems failed in efforts to include timeline for troop withdrawal
• Bill expected to withhold aid if Baghdad doesn't make progress on reforms

Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A deal on Iraq war spending left both sides chafed Wednesday, with liberal groups frustrated it does not include troop withdrawals and Republicans disappointed the White House is accepting billions in extra domestic spending.

The estimated $120 billion measure would fund the war through September as Bush requested and would not demand troops leave Iraq by a certain date or restrict the deployment of units based on readiness standards. However, the bill does threaten to withhold reconstruction assistance if Baghdad fails to make progress on political and security reforms, although the president could waive that restriction.

The bill also funds about $17 billion in domestic and military-related spending that Bush did not request.(Watch what the bill contains )

The measure was drafted after Bush's veto of a $124 billion bill that would have ordered troop withdrawals to begin October 1 and would have included more than $20 billion in added spending.

As Congress planned to send Bush the new bill by Friday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other top U.S. officials headed to Capitol Hill Wednesday to brief lawmakers on progress in Iraq.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the administration had not seen the final language. But aides and members said administration officials had agreed to its general terms.

Announcement of the deal Tuesday prompted a menacing threat by Moveon.Org, a grassroots anti-war group that rose to prominence in last year's elections. In a statement released Wednesday, the group said its members were calling to pull out all the stops, including possibly targeting the seats of Democrats who ran on anti-war platforms but vote for the deal.

"This is a key test vote on whether your representative is serious about ending the war," MoveOn wrote in an e-mail to lawmakers.

Likewise, the Council for a Liveable World, another influential anti-war group, fired off a letter to lawmakers saying the proposal "unduly slows" the anti-war effort and urged members to reject it.

For their part, Republicans said they are pressing the White House to insist that Democrats drop billions in added funding, particularly some $8 billion for domestic projects.

"We want to see the toughest possible line on extraneous spending in the bill," said Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Florida, chair of the House Republican Conference.

According to aides and members, the White House grudgingly agreed to accept the added spending in exchange for Democrats dropping restrictions on military operations.

At the same time, Republicans and Democrats both claimed victory in the deal.

"I think it's a giant step to begin the end of the war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California.

Pelosi's declaration of victory was in spite of her personal decision to oppose the measure because it does not include a timetable for troop withdrawals. Other House Democrats said they too would oppose it.

"I'm not voting for anything unless it ends the war," said Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California.

In order to secure the bill's passage, House leaders are planning to orchestrate two votes on Thursday. The first vote will be on war funding, while the second will decide whether extra money should be spent on domestic emergencies, military base closures, veterans care and other projects.

While Pelosi, Waters and other like-minded Democrats are expected to vote against the first amendment on war funds, GOP members will likely make up for the losses. On the second vote, it is anticipated Democrats will be unified in their support for the measure and overcome GOP objections to the extra spending.

Under the plan, the Senate would receive a single bill and cast its own vote by Friday. If Senate Republicans want to block the added domestic spending, they would have to block the war funds as well.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Democrats now will focus on 2008 defense spending to try to force an end to the war. The House plans to consider the military's annual budget this July and delay debate on 2008 war funding to September, just as the White House delivers a critical progress report on Iraq.

"I think we have moved debate very substantially forward, and we will continue to do so" in the upcoming spending bills, said Hoyer, D-Maryland

U.S. envoy urges speeded reforms in Iraq Wed May 23, 8:42 AM ET



BAGHDAD - America's top diplomat in Iraq urged Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government to speed up reforms geared toward achieving national reconciliation, saying it was its duty to do so soon.

ADVERTISEMENT

Ambassador Ryan Crocker listed the adoption of a draft law for the equitable distribution of oil wealth, another to integrate members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party in government departments, amending the constitution to satisfy Sunni Arab demands, and holding local elections as measures that the government had a "responsibility to tackle in the coming weeks."

"These are tasks that must be completed, and completed soon, to achieve national reconciliation," he said in an Arabic-language statement marking the first anniversary of al-Maliki's Shiite-dominated government.

"The first anniversary of a democratic government in Iraq is a victory for the people of Iraq. They've chosen their leaders and now it is the right of every citizen in a democratic society to expect measures and decisions from their elected representatives to serve the interests of Iraqis."

Crocker's statement provided the latest evidence that Washington had al-Maliki's government on notice that it must meet several policy benchmarks to secure continued U.S. support at a time when the Bush administration was under congressional pressure over its Iraq policies.

"The transition of any nation to a democratic system is considered a complex process ... It is easy to focus on the problems and challenges. Easy but wrong," said Crocker, who took over his job in March.

Bush Says Iraq Pullout Would Leave U.S. at Risk
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
Print
Reprints
Share
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
Permalink


By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: May 24, 2007
NEW LONDON, Conn., May 23 — President Bush, addressing head-on the criticism that Iraq has turned into another Vietnam, argued Wednesday that withdrawing from Iraq would be dangerous because, unlike the enemy in Vietnam, terrorists in Iraq had the ability and desire to strike Americans at home.

In a commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy here, Mr. Bush also described what the White House called previously classified intelligence to build his case that Osama bin Laden was trying to turn Iraq into a “terrorist sanctuary” from which Al Qaeda could plot against the United States.

Even in trying to contrast the two wars, invoking the Vietnam analogy was unusual for Mr. Bush. It is a comparison he typically addresses only in response to questions.

“Now, many critics compare the battle in Iraq to the situation we faced in Vietnam,” Mr. Bush said. “There are many differences between those two conflicts, but one stands out above all: The enemy in Vietnam had neither the intent nor the capability to strike our homeland. The enemy in Iraq does.”

The comments brought immediate criticism from Democrats and some counterterrorism experts, who assailed Mr. Bush for not acknowledging that the war itself helped open the door for terrorists to set up shop in Iraq. “One day Bush tells us we are fighting in Iraq so that terrorists won’t come here, then he releases intelligence that says terrorists trained in Iraq are coming here. Which is it?” said Richard A. Clarke, a former counterterrorism adviser to Mr. Bush and President Clinton, in a statement released by the National Security Network advocacy group.

Mr. Bush has long contended that withdrawing from Iraq would create a vacuum that would let Al Qaeda flourish, and he reiterated that argument on Wednesday, saying, “We are at a pivotal moment in this battle.” He painted a picture of a deepening terrorist threat even as he said Al Qaeda had been repeatedly thwarted by the United States and its allies.

In 2005, Mr. Bush said, Mr. bin Laden personally directed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist who led the group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia until his death last year at the hands of American forces, to develop a new terrorist cell that would plot attacks against the United States and other countries. “Bin Laden emphasized that America should be Zarqawi’s No. 1 priority in terms of foreign attacks,” he said. “Zarqawi welcomed this direction. He claimed that he had already come up with some good proposals.”

The speech, given to 228 graduates, was a far cry from the president’s last Coast Guard Academy commencement address. That speech, delivered in May of 2003, came just a few weeks after Mr. Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq, and the president used it to sound a theme of victory. “In Iraq, America’s military and our allies carried out every mission, and exceeded every expectation,” Mr. Bush said then.

Wednesday’s speech, by contrast, amounted to a defense of Mr. Bush’s policies, and drew immediate criticism from Democrats and some national security experts. Some argued that the speech, rather than building up Mr. Bush’s case for the war, undermined it by confirming that Iraq is already a haven for terrorists.

“The president today made the best case yet for why Congress must insist on a change of strategy in Iraq,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader. “Intelligence analysts concluded long ago that Iraq has indeed become a training ground and recruiting poster for a new generation of terrorists.” Thomas Sanderson, a terrorism spe******t at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies, called Mr. Bush’s argument “completely ridiculous,” and said Iraq would not have become a training ground for Al Qaeda had the United States not invaded. “We created the biggest terrorism training ground known, which is Iraq,” he said.

The assertion that Mr. bin Laden is thought to be communicating with insurgents in Iraq is not new. But Mr. Bush sought to infuse it with details. He said intelligence officials believed Mr. bin Laden had asked another top terror operative, Hamza Rabia, to help Mr. Zarqawi develop his terrorist cell by providing him with a briefing about Al Qaeda’s “external operations,” including information on attacks planned on American soil. Mr. Bush said another senior Qaeda leader, Abu Faraj al-Libi, at one point suggested that Mr. bin Laden send Mr. Rabia himself to Iraq, with the idea that “Al Qaeda might one day prepare the majority of its external operations from Iraq.”

And Mr. Bush said Mr. bin Laden tried to send another Qaeda operative, Abd al Hadi al-Iraqi, to Iraq. But Mr. Bush said he was captured.

How will Iraq share the oil? By Gail Russell Chaddock, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Fri May 18, 4:00 AM ET



Washington - The reason Iraq needs to pass a new oil law, President Bush has said, is to "share oil revenues among all of Iraq's citizens" – Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds – and to help unify the country.

ADVERTISEMENT

It's a goal broadly supported in the US Congress and by the Iraq Study Group, whose 2006 report said such an oil law was needed, too, to "create a fiscal and legal framework for investment" in the industry.

But now the oil law's status as a US "benchmark" for progress in Iraq is emerging as a flash point in both Baghdad and Washington.

So far, the frustration on Capitol Hill is mainly over the Iraqi government's perceived foot-dragging in finishing the oil law, which US advisers had a hand in crafting. But resistance is also surfacing to the substance of the oil bill, especially whether its main effect will be to ensure international companies a lucrative role in Iraq's rich oil fields. With House and Senate conferees about to put their heads together on a new war-funding bill that includes benchmarks for progress in Iraq, the proposed oil legislation is beginning to come under closer scrutiny.

"While we can't confirm it, there are enough reports out there that appear to indicate that undue, unfair preference and the influence of our oil companies are part of the Iraqi hydrocarbon law, and if that is true, that is not correct," says Rep. Joe Sestak (news, bio, voting record) (D) of Pennsylvania, a former admiral and defense adviser to the Clinton administration. "The aim of benchmarks is to help the process along, but we need benchmarks that are appropriate for the Iraqis and the Americans – not just our economy but our ideals."

US firms as the major beneficiary?
Fueling new resistance to the oil benchmark are reports that the draft law in fact says little about sharing oil revenues among Iraqi groups and a lot about setting up a framework for investment that may be disadvantageous to Iraqis over the long term. On the flip side: Iraq's oil industry badly needs new investment, and oil companies are reluctant to go into Iraq without a legal framework that ensures that the contracts they sign will be respected by future Iraqi governments.

Last week, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D) of Ohio, who is a presidential candidate, led off opposition to the draft law in a letter to Democratic colleagues. On Thursday, a coalition of oil industry watchdog groups and peace activists called on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) and Senator Reid to drop the Iraqi oil law as a benchmark for progress in Iraq.

"If Democrats are perceived to be advocating withdrawal [of US troops] only after access to Iraqi oil has been assured, this will do little to reassure critics," says Steve Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International, a watchdog group that drafted the letter.

In an open letter to Democrats in the US Congress last week, Hasan Jum'a Awwad, head of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, echoed that view. He urged that lawmakers "not link withdrawal [of US troops] with the oil law, especially since the USA claimed that it came to Iraq as a liberator and not in order to control Iraq's resources."

For most US lawmakers, the delay in passing the oil law shows that Iraq's new leaders aren't making tough political choices about their country's future, such as how to fairly distribute Iraq's oil wealth among all Iraqi groups.

"The Iraqi government remains in a dangerous stalemate: No oil law," Senate majority leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) said during a debate on war policy on Wednesday.

Why Iraqis don't want to rush
But in Baghdad, some Iraqi lawmakers say the oil issue is too vast and complex to rush. It should be the last issue – not one of the first – to be resolved, they say.

Moreover, Iraqi critics of the current draft law say it does not address the issues that US lawmakers think it does.

"The actual draft law has nothing to do with sharing the oil revenue," says former Iraqi oil minister Issam Al Chalabi, in a phone interview from Amman, Jordan. The law aims to set a framework for investment by outside oil companies, including favorable production-sharing agreements that are typically used to reward companies for taking on risk, he says.

"We know the oil is there. Geological studies have been made for decades on these oil fields, so why would we let them [international firms] have a share of the oil?" he adds. "Iraqis will say this is solid proof that Americans have staged the war ... because of this law."

On Feb. 26, Iraq's Cabinet approved the draft oil law, which was to be sent to parliament by March 15 – along with four annexes that provide the fine print, draft oil contracts, and a draft oil revenue-sharing law. The Bush administration wanted Iraq's parliament to approve the entire oil package by the end of May. But as of this week, not even the draft oil law has been submitted to parliament.

"The US talks about the sovereignty of Iraq, but why are they getting involved in this oil law?" asks Mohammed al-Dynee, member of parliament representing the Iraqi Front for National Dialogue, a Sunni group. He is in Washington to try to persuade Congress to drop calls for the oil law. "Even if this law can pass, which I doubt, it will remain ink on paper and will not be implemented on the ground."

An unofficial English translation of the draft law was first released on the website of the Kurdish Regional Government and has since been carried on oil industry watchdog sites such as Oil Change.

At least one 'red flag'
In New York, oil industry analyst Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. has reviewed both the official Arabic version of the draft law and the unofficial English translation and says they are ambiguous and seem to be written in haste.

"The law did not strike me as something that was explicitly designed to favor American companies, although I'm not ruling that out," he says.

But the stipulation that a new Federal Oil and Gas Council must include foreign participation did "raise a red flag," he says. Under the draft law, the council would carry out Iraqi oil policies and set criteria for foreign companies working in the industry.

"Why shouldn't Iraq use Iraqi nationals to decide how the contracts will be awarded? They have oil engineers. Use the best brains in the country and, hopefully. they will do what is in the best interest of the country," he says. "Otherwise, there's an impression that American companies are telling Iraqis what to do."

Foreign investment needed in Iraq
With the world's second-largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia, Iraq is the top prize in the international oil business. Iraq needs new foreign investment to help modernize its oil industry, which has been closed to new technology for the past 25 years, says Mr. Gheit.

But even with a new draft oil law, international oil companies won't be eager to send engineers into a nation in turmoil. "It's very difficult for oil companies to recruit people willing to work in the Iraqi oil fields. It's mayhem," he says.

"If the idea of the law is to expedite getting international oil [firms] to ... set up shop and invest money, they're mistaken," Gheit adds. "I doubt very much that any oil company will be willing to send geologists, engineers to be shot at, kidnapped, or beheaded."

In the 1990s, Saddam Hussein shifted Iraq's oil industry from production-sharing agreements, which gave foreign investors a substantial share in revenues, to service agreements, which limit such investors' profits.

"It's very important, as we said in the [Iraq Study Group] report, that the US not be seen as trying to seek control of that oil," says Lee Hamilton, a cochairman of the Iraq Study Group. "But that will be very difficult to achieve because of the mind-set in much of the region today that we went in because of the oil.... Most of the critics will not be persuaded by any rhetoric of the US but by a law that is drafted and implemented fairly

I know it is a few day's old.but thought it to be interesting!!!

snottynose,

Do you have links that I can click on and read for myself?

Thank you for posting this.