Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Iraqi PM: the Iraqi "benchmarks" agreement was made two months ago

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-26-06 02:05 PM
Original message
Iraqi PM: the Iraqi "benchmarks" agreement was made two months ago

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=HOL661955

Q&A excerpts from interview with Iraqi PM

<snip>

Q. The U.S. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, spoke on Tuesday of a series of "benchmarks" on political and security issues that were agreed with your government. Is this the case?

A. I want to clarify something ... Khalilzad was at a meeting between us and other officials including the president and his deputies. We discussed setting a timetable for solving pending issues. That was two months ago ... It is not a timetable for the government but rather the issues needed to be solved. We said, for example, 'In November we will finish this and in January this and in 2007 we will amend the constitution'. The term used by Khalilzad was not accurate. That is why it was negatively understood. It is a list of issues we need to solve and this was our decision. It was not Khalilzad's decision but he was present.

Q. Are you concerned that the United States could try to push you aside if there is no progress in the coming months?

A. I don't think American policy would commit the mistake of replacing a prime minister or a government in Iraq. That would be burning their slogans. I don't think they think like that as it would mean the failure of the entire political process. As far as 'tough decisions' go, I say we want to take firm and difficult decisions. But anyone who wants to take a difficult decision has to do so from solid ground and so the far the ground is unstable -- due to current security policies ...

If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq it is the Coalition. I am now prime minister and overall commander of the armed forces yet I cannot move a single company without Coalition approval because of the U.N. mandate. So those who have the authority and could move the forces are also responsible. This should be clear ...

I have to be careful fighting some militias and terrorists ... because they are better armed than the army and police. The other point is that the army and police have been infiltrated because they were randomly formed. There are terrorists in the army and militias in the police and also members of the old regime.



:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC