Iraq's Cabinet to vote on security pact with US

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Source: Yahoo News

BAGHDAD – Iraq's Cabinet will vote Sunday on a security pact with Washington that would keep U.S. forces in the country for another three years, a major step in efforts to balance Iraqi demands for national sovereignty with the security concerns of the two allies.

In a bid to secure support for the agreement from the country's top Shiite cleric, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Saturday dispatched two senior lawmakers to see Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in the holy city of Najaf, south of Baghdad, with a copy of the pact's final draft.

A senior official at al-Sistani's office said the cleric told the two legislators — Khalid al-Attiyah and Ali al-Adeeb — that the document represented "the best available option" for Iraq, signaling that he would not object to it if the Cabinet and later parliament approve it.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said al-Sistani indicated to al-Attiyah and al-Adeeb that he wanted the agreement to pass by a comfortable majority in the 275-seat parliament.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081115/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq

[Xipe Totec]

1. Have they been briefed on which way they should vote?

It would be sad if they screwed the pooch because nobody clued them in...

[wtmusic]

2. "the best available option" = sign, or else

there could be tragic, unforeseen consequences.

[acmavm]

3. Things just might get lively over there again...

<snip>

BAGHDAD – Iraq's two most powerful Shiite clerics on Friday challenged the government's planned security pact with the United States, undercutting efforts to reach a deal before the U.N. mandate for American troops in Iraq expires Dec. 31.

Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr renewed threats to unleash his militia fighters to attack U.S. forces unless they leave Iraq immediately, and Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani vowed to intervene if he concludes the proposed agreement governing the presence of U.S. forces infringes on national sovereignty.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq

[qwlauren35]

4. Remember, the game has CHANGED!!!

ALLOWING the US to stay for 3 years doesn't mean that we will, and in fact, basically costs them nothing, now that the administration is changing.

While Iraq might not have wanted continued occupation under Bush... or McCain, they can probably expect relatively benign presence from Obama's military, and extreme reduction in forces.

They really have a lot to gain in signing it. And Obama can rescind it in January anyway.

[ohio2007]

5. Right on que; Sadr Threatens Attacks on U.S. Troops if Accord Passes

from his safe haven in another country

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3600915

guess they better not 'limit' the # of years the US forces stay in Iraq eh ?
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=4600140