Iraqi lawmakers endorse U.S. withdrawal timeline

May 10, 2007

For a variety of reasons (terrorism, crumbling infrastructure, boycotts, fear), Iraq’s parliament doesn’t meet very often to govern, but that doesn’t mean lawmakers don’t have noteworthy things to say.

A majority of Iraqi lawmakers have signed onto draft legislation calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq and demanding a freeze on the number of such troops already in the country, lawmakers said Thursday.

The legislation was being discussed even as U.S. lawmakers were locked in a dispute with the White House over their call to start reducing the size of the U.S. force here in the coming months.

The proposed Iraqi legislation, drafted by the parliamentary bloc loyal to anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, was signed by 144 members of the 275-member house, according to Nassar al-Rubaie, the leader of the Sadrist bloc.

The Sadrist bloc, which holds 30 parliamentary seats and sees the U.S.-led forces as an occupying army, has pushed similar bills before, but this would be the first time it had garnered the support of a majority of lawmakers.

Now, I’m not necessarily surprised that a Sadrist bloc would rally opposition to the United States’ presence in Iraq, but the fact that a majority of the parliament is on board with such a plan, White House rhetoric notwithstanding, appears to be part of a sea-change.

I’m curious: why hasn’t this become a big story? The excerpt above came from an AP article, which followed a piece from Alternet yesterday, but otherwise, I haven’t seen mention of it at any major news outlet. It’s possible that the major media is waiting for the withdrawal resolution to be formally voted on — right now, it’s only a draft that hasn’t been formally introduced — but it’s still rather striking that it’s garnered majority support already, isn’t it?

For that matter, if this resolution is formally approved by the parliament, how, exactly, does the administration respond to that?

VP Cheney was probably there in Iraq to ‘help’ Maliki kill that legislation so it never sees the light of day; that way, the Bush team can try to claim that our deployment is still asked for by the Iraqi government.

Let’s skip over the fact that this means US national security is in the hands of a foreign country; we know how the Bushies hate that, right?

  • That “young democracy” doesn’t know what’s good for them.

    Who knows how the Reich Wing and their talking-head minions in the “liberal” media will spin this one. Probably just ignore it since it does not conform to their misconception of reality.

  • The Dems need to stall with the war funding bill and publicize this piece of news loud, far and wide. Then see how much support Bush’s veto garners. Ask Petraes how this will affect his operations. Bush didn’t see this one coming I bet.

  • Whatever the outcome of the American vote, on what basis could – or would – Bush overrule the vote of a sovereign Iraqi government for withdrawal of troops?

  • I’m curious: why hasn’t this become a big story? — CB

    a): as you say: it’s still only a draft. They managed to construct a draft of the oil bill (to our satifaction) how many months ago? And where is the *law* based on that draft? Up in the air. Sometimes, “from a big cloud, (there’s ) little rain”(as they say in Poland).

    But I think b): “the ‘liberal’ media is waiting, slack-jawed, for spin directions to come down from the WH” is, probably, equally likely. Expect to hear something tomorrow evening (TGIF) 🙂

  • What this vote will basically do is turn the Americans in Iraq into illegal immigrants. Kind of like the ones that Republicans here like to complain about. Except that our illegal immigrants aren’t armed to the teeth and blowing shit up. Or taking our oil.

  • […] on what basis could – or would – Bush overrule the vote of a sovereign Iraqi government for withdrawal of troops — Anne,@4

    “They don’t know what’s good for them, the ungrateful so-and-sos”?
    “The vote wasn’t unanimous; there’s serious disagreement on the subject”?
    “Moktadais a terrorist and we don’t listen to terrorists.Without Moktada there’d have been no such vote”?

    Any excuse will do; where there’s a will…

  • I’m of the same mind as libra. Is this measure a rebellion against the oil bill that is getting shoved down Iraqi throats? Is the jig finally up on Big Dick’s oil grab?

  • I think I’ll sit back on this one for a few days—just to see if the Dick n’ Dubya Show turn this into another “Reichstag Moment….”

  • “For that matter, if this resolution is formally approved by the parliament, how, exactly, does the administration respond to that?”

    um…..leave?

    • Comments are closed.