Bush says troops staying put, but plan dissatisfies Iraqi leaders

BAGHDAD - President Bush pledged Monday night to continue moving toward democracy in Iraq but said American troops will stay on, under U.S. command, after Iraqi leaders take control of their country this summer.

The president of the Iraqi Governing Council, however, that a proposed U.S.-British blueprint for a post-occupation Iraq falls short of expectation, and several key U.N. Security Council members said the proposal presented to the United Nations does not make clear whether the new government will have full authority over Iraq's security, and when foreign troops would leave. They said that raises the question of whether there will be a true handover of power on June 30.

Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer did not elaborate when he spoke to reporters after a meeting of the U.S.-appointed body today. He said the council welcomed President Bush's statement Monday night at the Army War College that the occupation will end on June 30 as expected.

On the draft blueprint submitted to the U.N. Security Council, however, al-Yawer said: "We found it less than our expectations." He said he hoped that input from the Governing Council would be incorporated into the final version of the resolution.

more

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory2/2590826

( I am posting this as Les BOOGIE's thread was locked for the wrong title, thanks Les BOOGIE for finding this, good article!)

getting mighty Drafty

he'll send more.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3745611.stm


UK
Prime Minister Tony Blair says that after the transfer of power on 30 June,

Iraq's interim government will have a veto on operations by coalition troops.


"The final political control remains with the Iraqi government. That's what the transfer of sovereignty means."



snip


The text of the draft resolution says that the interim Iraqi government that takes charge on 30 June will have sovereignty, but limited control over coalition military operations.

snip

But UK Prime Minister Tony Blair on Tuesday stressed that an Iraqi government would have the "final political control" over action by coalition forces after 30 June.


Asked by reporters whether Iraqi ministers would be able to veto military action such as a renewed assault on the restive Iraqi city of Falluja, Mr Blair said any action would need "the consent of the Iraqi government".

And it would be up to the Iraqi government and its people to decide "whether the troops stay or not", he said.

Tony is forgetting who's in charge. Just shut up, send troops, and do what you're told, Poodle.

"On the draft blueprint submitted to the U.N. Security Council, however, al-Yawer said: "We found it less than our expectations." He said he hoped that input from the Governing Council would be incorporated into the final version of the resolution."

These are bush's hand-picked puppets and they didn't have ANY input into the resolution? Very odd, one has to wonder why and I hope the UN members question why as well.

....and further down in the article.

But security-- and who is ultimately responsible for it -- is a sticking point. The resolution sets no date for the troops to leave, although it calls for a review after 12 months, or earlier at the request of the elected government. France, Germany, China, Chile and Russia would like to have an earlier reassessment, or to simply leave the force's mandate to the new Iraqi government to decide.

Fourteen months after a charge by U.S. forces into Baghdad toppled Saddam's government, there are growing signs that Americans are increasingly troubled by the losses being suffered there and the appearance of widespread disorder.

General Zinni is correct with his many observations of the flaws of this administration. Also General Hoar is right on the money.

nothings changing...

what the meaning of "occupation" is. Or maybe WHICH June 30 one is talking about.

With no embarrassment at all, they look the world in the eye and tell us things they know to be absolutely untrue. A nation only has sovereignty when it has control of its own territory; if it doesn't have the freedom to throw out a major armed force, then it is a vassal state. This leads to the obvious point: who controls the oil?

This war was about many things (Daddy Revenge, supporting Israel, tough-guy strutting, strategic geographical deployment, god, and that tasty OIL) but the OIL is the big issue. Junior's counted coup and rubbed their noses into doo-doo over the issue of thwarting his Daddy's designs and defying us, the world's lords and masters, so that issue is largely resolved.

We love forests, that's why we cut them down. We love the honorable American Worker, that's why we're shifting the tax burden onto them. We promise that faith-based organizations won't use public funds to promote their belief even though we declare that the faith itself is what's successful in these programs.

It's all just crap.

We systematically deny more and more freedom to our own people, yet we altruistically go to the ends of the earth to bring freedom like some heavily-armed Santa Claus. Hardly anybody really believes this shit.

What the hell does Busco care about Iraq? It's all about what WE want!