Final draft rejected, SOFA goes back to Sistani

[copper13]

Oct 19th, 2008

Final draft rejected, SOFA goes back to Sistani

It seems that SOFA discussions in the Political Council ended in failure, political factions told Aswat Iraq that there are still seven points need to be changed in the final draft. So what happened today?

You can notice that there is summary of the meeting in the foreign media, Moheet gives us more information saying:

The Political Council anonymously rejected the agreement and some of the MP’s of the United Iraqi Alliance [oil Minister, Shahrstani] demanded to establish UN forces as an alternative to replace the U.S. occupation forces. Others demanded a referendum on the agreement.

At the end the meeting the participants agreed to reject this final draft and to take these two measures:

- Sending the final draft of the agreement to the religious authority in Najaf, to read and decide.

- Forming a committee to re-write the draft agreement.

At least we know one “new” disputed-point as reported on Al-Qabas saying:

Iraq’s right to inspect [U.S.] cargos to/from Iraq is at the heart of the discussions, and if these cargos contain weapons that could hurt Iraq, despite the U.S. promised not to introduce weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq.

As for the always popup issue of the “Najaf references” used by the Maliki’s government and mentioned above, the newspaper noticed the following:

There is no change in the Sistani’s or the references positions which are four principles:

- to preserve national sovereignty.

- national consensus.

- transparency in the presenting of the pact to the Iraqi people.

- the parliament.

But this is the trick in Sistani’s statement:

If the Parliament is representing the people, then why he said: “The people and the parliament”? Did he want a referendum even after the parliament approves the security agreement?


http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/10/1...ck-to-sistani/


#@!$#!@!$!@!:swear:

[Shau - Kenshin]

SONUVAH :swear:!!!!!!!!

Damn it!!

GOT DAMN IT!!!

[Adster]

Bar stewards. :swear:

[copper13]

bump..............

[MonteandMe]

They are waiting for after the US elections, they think they will get a better deal with Obama......maybe Maliki was told by Iran that the US would just leave with no restrictions.....

[GottaDash]

LOL... How many times have we seen a situation that looked like it was the end - wouldn't and couldn't be resolved. Then, out of the blue, they figure it out (election law, etc)

All that is needed is an upcoming vacation. Then it will all be worked out. They NEVER get ANYTHING done during their "regular sessions."

Sistani has stated that a signed SOFA is the best for Iraq - doesn't matter that he just wants the foreigners out of the country and Iraq's full sovereignty. The Parliamentarians don't DARE go against him. There's just some sticky points to be figured out.

From recent events, I'm learning not to sweat the small stuff (not that SOFA is small by any means).

The Bush needs SOFA as a feather in is cap for his Presidency.

-Dash

[debrobb]

They are waiting for after the US elections, they think they will get a better deal with Obama......maybe Maliki was told by Iran that the US would just leave with no restrictions.....

Not with McCain!!!

[Adster]

They are waiting for after the US elections, they think they will get a better deal with Obama......maybe Maliki was told by Iran that the US would just leave with no restrictions.....

Agreed, they're waiting for Bush to leave and then do it. This is a big blow to Bush and Repubs.

[nebraskadinar]

This is to be expected. Give it a little more time and hopefully we will see an agreement.

[Lance Carnegie]

Oct 19th, 2008

Final draft rejected, SOFA goes back to Sistani

It seems that SOFA discussions in the Political Council ended in failure, political factions told Aswat Iraq that there are still seven points need to be changed in the final draft. So what happened today?

You can notice that there is summary of the meeting in the foreign media, Moheet gives us more information saying:

The Political Council anonymously rejected the agreement and some of the MP’s of the United Iraqi Alliance [oil Minister, Shahrstani] demanded to establish UN forces as an alternative to replace the U.S. occupation forces. Others demanded a referendum on the agreement.

At the end the meeting the participants agreed to reject this final draft and to take these two measures:

- Sending the final draft of the agreement to the religious authority in Najaf, to read and decide.

- Forming a committee to re-write the draft agreement.

At least we know one “new” disputed-point as reported on Al-Qabas saying:

Iraq’s right to inspect [U.S.] cargos to/from Iraq is at the heart of the discussions, and if these cargos contain weapons that could hurt Iraq, despite the U.S. promised not to introduce weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq.

As for the always popup issue of the “Najaf references” used by the Maliki’s government and mentioned above, the newspaper noticed the following:

There is no change in the Sistani’s or the references positions which are four principles:

- to preserve national sovereignty.

- national consensus.

- transparency in the presenting of the pact to the Iraqi people.

- the parliament.

But this is the trick in Sistani’s statement:

If the Parliament is representing the people, then why he said: “The people and the parliament”? Did he want a referendum even after the parliament approves the security agreement?


http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/10/1...ck-to-sistani/


#@!$#!@!$!@!:swear:

Im not sure how credible this news source is. Looks to me like someones blog. The AP news wires are stating that the Shiite bloc is rejecting it, not the majority.

[Lance Carnegie]

Im not sure how credible this news source is. Looks to me like someones blog. The AP news wires are stating that the Shiite bloc is rejecting it, not the majority.

This is the article that this bloggers conjecture came from:

7 security pact paras need amendment – SIIC official

October 19, 2008 - 01:09:47

BAGHDAD / Aswat al-Iraq: Seven paragraphs in the security deal planned to be signed with Washington need to be amended, a key member of Shiite leader Abdelaziz al-Hakim’s Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) said on Sunday.
“There is no attitude taken in advance regarding the Iraq-U.S. long-term security pact but there are some paragraphs that have to do with Iraq’s full sovereignty and security that need to be amended,” Sheikh Jalal al-Din al-Saghir, the leader of the SIIC parliamentary bloc, told Aswat al-Iraq.
The Iraqi and U.S. sides have been negotiating over a long-term security agreement to organize the presence of the U.S. army on Iraqi territories as its international mandate is due to expire late this year.
“These points have to do with the judicial jurisdiction, prisons, the nature of U.S. mail and the nature of the Iraqi government’s monitoring over it,” Saghir said.
AmR (P)

[Adster]

Iraq seeks to change troop deal
US troops in Baghdad
Iraq regards blanket immunity for US troops as undermining its sovereignty

Iraq's ruling coalition says it wants to make changes to a draft long-term security pact with the US.

American and Iraqi officials had previously said the draft agreement was final and would not be changed.

The deal would allow US forces to stay in Iraq until 2011 and grant Iraq limited authority to prosecute troops.

The agreement has been the subject of negotiations for months and must be approved by Iraq's parliament by the end of the year.

Parliamentary approval is expected to be more likely if the deal is rubber-stamped by Iraq's Political Council for National Security.

The council - composed of top political leaders and the heads of parliamentary factions - met on Friday and is expected to meet again soon to hear from military figures.

In a statement released on Sunday, the ruling United Iraqi Alliance - the coalition which includes the party of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki - praised some elements of the draft but said others needed more work.

Correspondents say it is significant that the bloc containing Mr Maliki's own party is publicly calling for changes.

On Saturday, an estimated 50,000 supporters of the radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr marched in Baghdad to call for US troops to leave Iraq.

The UN mandate for US-led coalition forces expires at the end of this year. About 144,000 of the 152,000 foreign troops deployed there are US military personnel.

[Fishindinar]

If the USA keeps giving them concessions they will keep rejecting it until they gey what they want. The USA needs to walk away and tell them to pay their old debts.

[WCinThai]

Bar stewards. :swear:

would stewards = lawyers in the states?

[WCinThai]

Agreed, they're waiting for Bush to leave and then do it. This is a big blow to Bush and Repubs.

It's time for GWB to revoke some executive orders..... which there will be serveral people just jumping to get a hold of Iraq reserves.

Do it MAN, don't play around.

[Adster]

would stewards = lawyers in the states?

Yea, could apply to them. Tis a nicer word than the swear word it sounds like.

[MonteandMe]

It's time for GWB to revoke some executive orders..... which there will be serveral people just jumping to get a hold of Iraq reserves.

Do it MAN, don't play around.

If Bush would just start pulling the forces out and equipment the world would cry for agreements and put a lot of weight on Iraq to do something. Maliki is no friend to the US and is in a power struggle with Iran for domination of the middle east. They do not want democracy in the middle east. They want total domination............

[Midnight Tide]

If the USA keeps giving them concessions they will keep rejecting it until they gey what they want. The USA needs to walk away and tell them to pay their old debts.

Exactly - time to pay up!

[NewUser]

If Bush would just start pulling the forces out and equipment the world would cry for agreements and put a lot of weight on Iraq to do something. Maliki is no friend to the US and is in a power struggle with Iran for domination of the middle east. They do not want democracy in the middle east. They want total domination............

I agree Monte, maybe if we drop a couple of bombs within Iran, get rid of the miget and Mookie ( M&M). Get them (Iranians)thinking about something else other than Iraq and stop screwwing around with the GOI and "Joe Iraqie", we claim(U.S.) nothing and go back and get things done in Iraq!!!! JMO and I'm sure their is alot of people on here that feel the same way, good thing we are not in charge, Huh!!!!!

[IraqInBlack]

One MOAB for every mosque. Then the problem is solved. Anyone want to join in? That's a lot of MOAB's but, hey, we need to make one last sacrifice to solve the problem once and for all.