Iraq handover of sovereignty completed

[Lyle]

CNN Story here... (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28/iraq.handover/index.html)

[blackfox]

Take the above link, and mix with the following:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8665-2004Jun26.html
...after well-blended, slowly add this to the mix:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6581-2004Jun25.html
...taste...if too bitter, add a dash of the following...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10539-2004Jun27.html
depending on your dietary needs, you may want to use saccharine instead...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10683-2004Jun27.html
serve...mmm...mmm

[Lyle]

Take the above link, and mix with the following...Links that require registration give me indigestion. ;)

Do you (or anyone else) have any registration-free links for the same?

[blackfox]

Links that require registration give me indigestion. ;)

Do you (or anyone else) have any registration-free links for the same?
first story:

BAGHDAD, June 26 -- U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer has issued a raft of edicts revising Iraq's legal code and has appointed at least two dozen Iraqis to government jobs with multi-year terms in an attempt to promote his concepts of governance long after the planned handover of political authority on Wednesday.


Some of the orders signed by Bremer, which will remain in effect unless overturned by Iraq's interim government, restrict the power of the interim government and impose U.S.-crafted rules for the country's democratic transition. Among the most controversial orders is the enactment of an elections law that gives a seven-member commission the power to disqualify political parties and any of the candidates they support.

The effect of other regulations could last much longer. Bremer has ordered that the national security adviser and the national intelligence chief chosen by the interim prime minister he selected, Ayad Allawi, be given five-year terms, imposing Allawi's choices on the elected government that is to take over next year.

Bremer also has appointed Iraqis handpicked by his aides to influential positions in the interim government. He has installed inspectors-general for five-year terms in every ministry. He has formed and filled commissions to regulate communications, public broadcasting and securities markets. He named a public-integrity commissioner who will have the power to refer corrupt government officials for prosecution.

Some Iraqi officials condemn Bremer's edicts and appointments as an effort to exert U.S. control over the country after the transfer of political authority. "They have established a system to meddle in our affairs," said Mahmoud Othman, a member of the Governing Council, a recently dissolved body that advised Bremer for the past year. "Iraqis should decide many of these issues."

Bremer has defended his issuance of many of the orders as necessary to implement democratic reforms and update Iraq's out-of-date legal code. He said he regarded the installation of inspectors-general in ministries, the creation of independent commissions and the changes to Iraqi law as important steps to fight corruption and cronyism, which in turn would help the formation of democratic institutions.

"You set up these things and they begin to develop a certain life and momentum on their own -- and it's harder to reverse course," Bremer said in a recent interview.

As of June 14, Bremer had issued 97 legal orders, which are defined by the U.S. occupation authority as "binding instructions or directives to the Iraqi people" that will remain in force even after the transfer of political authority. An annex to the country's interim constitution requires the approval of a majority of Allawi's ministers, as well as the interim president and two vice presidents, to overturn any of Bremer's edicts. A senior U.S. official in Iraq noted recently that it would "not be easy to reverse" the orders.

It appears unlikely that all of the orders will be followed. Many of them reflect an idealistic but perhaps futile attempt to impose Western legal, economic and social concepts on a tradition-bound nation that is reveling in anything-goes freedom after 35 years of dictatorial rule.

The orders include rules that cap tax rates at 15 percent, prohibit piracy of intellectual property, ban children younger than 15 from working, and a new traffic code that stipulates the use of a car horn in "emergency conditions only" and requires a driver to "hold the steering wheel with both hands."

Iraq has long been a place where few people pay taxes, where most movies and music are counterfeit, where children often hold down jobs and where traffic laws are rarely obeyed, Iraqis note.

Other regulations promulgated by Bremer prevent former members of the Iraqi army from holding public office for 18 months after their retirement or resignation, stipulate a 30-year minimum sentence for people caught selling weapons such as grenades and ban former militiamen integrated into the Iraqi armed forces from endorsing and campaigning for political candidates. He has also enacted a 76-page law regulating private corporations and amended an industrial-design law to protect microchip designs. Those changes were intended to facilitate the entry of Iraq into the World Trade Organization, even though the country is so violent that the no commercial flights are allowed to land at Baghdad's airport.

Some of the new rules attempt to introduce American approaches to fighting crime. An anti-money-laundering law requires banks to collect detailed personal information from customers seeking to make transactions greater than $3,500, while the Commission on Public Integrity has been given the power to reward whistleblowers with 25 percent of the funds recovered by the government from corrupt practices they have identified.

In some cases Bremer's regulations diverge from the Bush administration's domestic policies. He suspended the death penalty, and his election law imposes a strict quota: One of every three candidates on a party's slate must be a woman...SNIP
2nd...

While it found no operational ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has concluded that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network had long-running contacts with Iraq's neighbor and historic foe, Iran.


Al Qaeda, the commission determined, may even have played a "yet unknown role" in aiding Hezbollah militants in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia, an attack the United States has long blamed solely on Hezbollah and its Iranian sponsors.

The notion that bin Laden may have had a hand in the Khobar bombing would mark a rare operational alliance between Sunni and Shiite Muslim groups that have historically been at odds. That possibility, largely overlooked in the furor of new revelations released by the commission last week, comes amid worsening relations between the United States and Iran, which announced on Thursday that it would resume building equipment necessary for a nuclear weapons program.

The Sept. 11 panel's findings on Iran have been eclipsed by the continuing political debate over Iraq, which the commission said had not developed a "collaborative relationship" with al Qaeda despite limited contacts in the 1990s. That appeared to conflict with previous characterizations made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration officials in their justifications for launching the war against Saddam Hussein.

In relation to Iran, commission investigators said intelligence "showed far greater potential for collaboration between Hezbollah and al Qaeda than many had previously thought." Iran is a primary sponsor of Hezbollah, or Party of God, the Lebanon-based anti-Israel group that has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

The commission's Republican chairman, former New Jersey governor Thomas H. Kean, also said in a television appearance last week that "there were a lot more active contacts, frankly, with Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq."

But perhaps most startling was the commission's finding that bin Laden may have played a role in the Khobar attack. Although previous court filings and testimony indicated that al Qaeda and Iranian elements had contacts during the 1990s, U.S. authorities have not publicly linked bin Laden or his operatives to that strike, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen. A June 2001 indictment of 14 defendants in the case makes no mention of al Qaeda or bin Laden and lays the organizational blame for the attacks solely on Hezbollah and Iran.

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert who heads the Washington office of Rand Corp., said that although bin Laden's then-fledgling group was an early suspect in the blasts, "the evidence kept pointing to an Iranian connection, so people tended to discount a bin Laden connection."

"What the commission report is raising is that the relationship might have been much tighter and was in fact operational and not just spiritual," Hoffman said.

U.S. officials who have worked on the Khobar case are more skeptical. A law enforcement source with knowledge of the case, who declined to be identified because of the ongoing criminal investigation, said authorities searched carefully for an al Qaeda connection but found no basis for it.

The broader notion of links between bin Laden's group and Hezbollah or hard-line elements in Iran's security forces has been a hot topic in U.S. law enforcement and intelligence circles for years. Many analysts have viewed such an alliance as dubious, largely because of ancient animosities between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Several leaders of al Qaeda, a Sunni organization, have issued rabidly anti-Shiite proclamations.

Nonetheless, the United States previously compiled evidence of limited contacts between Iranian interests and al Qaeda. U.S. officials alleged that Iran was harboring al Qaeda militants who had fled neighboring Afghanistan after the U.S. invasion there.

Iran has denied that al Qaeda was operating from its territory, and announced earlier this year that it would put on trial a dozen suspected members of the terrorist group.

The original U.S. indictment of bin Laden, filed in 1998, said al Qaeda "forged alliances . . . with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States." ...SNIP

CONTINUED...

[blackfox]

3RD...
raq Occupation Erodes Bush Doctrine

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 28, 2004; Page A01

The occupation of Iraq has increasingly undermined, and in some cases discredited, the core tenets of President Bush's foreign policy, according to a wide range of Republican and Democratic analysts and U.S. officials.


When the war began 15 months ago, the president's Iraq policy rested on four broad principles: The United States should act preemptively to prevent strikes on U.S. targets. Washington should be willing to act unilaterally, alone or with a select coalition, when the United Nations or allies balk. Iraq was the next cornerstone in the global war on terrorism. And Baghdad's transformation into a new democracy would spark regionwide change.

But these central planks of Bush doctrine have been tainted by spiraling violence, limited reconstruction, failure to find weapons of mass destruction or prove Iraq's ties to al Qaeda, and mounting Arab disillusionment with U.S. leadership.

"Of the four principles, three have failed, and the fourth -- democracy promotion -- is hanging by a sliver," said Geoffrey Kemp, a National Security Council staff member in the Reagan administration and now director of regional strategic programs at the Nixon Center.

The president has "walked away from unilateralism. We're not going to do another preemptive strike anytime soon, certainly not in Iran or North Korea. And it looks like terrorism is getting worse, not better, especially in critical countries like Saudi Arabia," Kemp said.

As a result, Bush doctrine could become the biggest casualty of U.S. intervention in Iraq, which is entering a new phase this week as the United States prepares to hand over power to the new Iraqi government.

Setbacks in Iraq have had a visible impact on policy, forcing shifts or reassessments. The United States has returned to the United Nations to solve its political problems in Iraq. It has appealed to NATO for help on security. It is also relying on diplomacy, with allies, to deal with every other hot spot.

"There's already been a retreat from the radicalism in Bush administration foreign policy," said Walter Russell Mead, a Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow. "You have a feeling that even Bush isn't saying, 'Hey, that was great. Let's do it again.' "

Some analysts, including Republicans, suggest that another casualty of Iraq is the neoconservative approach that inspired a zealous agenda to tackle security threats in the Middle East and transform the region politically.

"Neoconservatism has been replaced by neorealism, even within the Bush White House," Kemp said. "The best evidence is the administration's extraordinary recent reliance on [U.N. Secretary General] Kofi Annan and [U.N. envoy] Lakhdar Brahimi. The neoconservatives are clearly much less credible than they were a year ago."

The administration would not make a senior official or spokesman available for quotation by name to support its policy. But top administration officials insist the Iraq experience has not invalidated Bush doctrine, and they contend its basic principles will endure beyond the Bush presidency.

Policy supporters argue that current realities will keep some form of all four ideas in future policy. "Despite all the problems of implementation and despite mistakes made by the Bush administration, I don't see many other choices," said William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and chief of staff for Vice President Dan Quayle.

"No one thinks the Middle East pre-September 11 is acceptable, or that we should work with its dictators. No one says in a world of weapons of mass destruction we can rule out preemption or that they're not worried about the linkage between terrorism and states producing weapons of mass destruction," he said. "So I don't see much of an alternative to the Bush doctrine."

Challenges to its four central tenets, however, are likely to influence U.S. foreign policy for years, some analysts predict...SNIP
And Final...

Gauging Our Success

By Bob Dole
Monday, June 28, 2004; Page A21

An air of unreality is polluting our country's political discourse on the U.S. role in Iraq. Opponents of the coalition deployment were already questioning the continued U.S. presence and second-guessing the intervention itself. Now they are raising the bar for a "successful" handover of power in Iraq to absurdly high levels.


Iraq is and will continue to be a contentious issue -- all the more reason for every political side and interested party to restore some perspective to our national debate. To begin: Where do our Iraq operations really stand? The first phase of the country's transformation was completed when the U.S.-led coalition overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein. The second ends this week when an interim Iraqi government assumes power.

These are important milestones, but when Iraqis awaken July 1, they will not suddenly find themselves denizens of a stable democracy. This momentous day will merely be one of many steps on the long, hard journey to democracy. To reach the end of that road, the international coalition and Iraqis must work together to build accountable government, a viable economy, effective security structures, reliable media, the rule of law and other foundations of a civil society.

I share the administration's belief that relinquishing sovereignty over Iraq from the coalition to an Iraqi government now will facilitate and expedite this process -- but there will be setbacks, and the process will be arduous. I do not agree with those who suggest we are doomed to failure or that we have achieved little. Yes, the battle is ongoing and victory cannot yet be ensured in some quarters, but we have accomplished much.

As President Bush has noted, some targets have been reached at a faster pace than in postwar Germany and Japan. For the others, remember that the United States is in its ninth year in Bosnia, where we have spent roughly $29 billion and still have about 1,000 troops deployed to enforce a flawed peace plan that legitimizes ethnic divisions and paralyzes the central state. In Kosovo, where several hundred U.S. troops are deployed, the United Nations controls a national economy that is in worse condition than when the U.N. was entrusted with restoring it five years ago.

Meanwhile, in only 15 months in Iraq, the coalition has facilitated the production of more than 150 newspapers, the operation of an effective police force, the reopening of schools with propaganda-free textbooks, the rebuilding of more than 400 villages razed by Hussein, the re-creation and appreciation of a national currency, and the return from Iran and Turkey of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees.

Legions of dedicated American and other soldiers, public servants, businessmen, and nongovernmental workers in Iraq have struggled to complete these tasks and will continue to fulfill their mission in the face of unimaginably difficult obstacles. Terrorists are trying to drive them out by capturing and gruesomely murdering innocent civilians. At the same time, a group of U.S. troops has damaged their collective credibility by beating and ritually humiliating Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. Here at home, critics carp and, intentionally or not, too often suggest that Americans are serving and dying in Iraq in vain. Some suggest that if we had it to do over again, we would not and should not.

Some Democrats even claim that the coalition's failure to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq invalidates their earlier explicit support for our intervention. In fact, their own statements at the time show that they supported the war not only because it would eradicate the weapons threat but also because it would end human rights abuses and regime-sponsored terrorism, as well as create conditions for democracy. This isn't just "selective amnesia" in an election year. It's irresponsible hindsight.

Backbiters and back-stabbers are as entitled as anyone to ask questions, but they, like the rest of us, must remain realistic and credible. Today Iraq is poised for increased prosperity and a better political future. Many, if not most, of its people are imbued with hope. Thousands of brave Americans, with the support of most of us here, are slowly but surely turning that hope into reality.

If our hope is not fully realized, it will not be because President Bush decided to withdraw on the advice of those who expected miracles and instant gratification. We will have set noble yet tangible goals, worked diligently and sacrificed honorably. If we succeed -- as I believe we will, sometime after this wretched political season is over but in the not too distant future -- the people of Iraq and their neighbors in the Middle East will benefit from political rights, civil liberties and freedom of a kind that the Arab world has never seen before.

The writer, a former Senate majority leader, was the Republican candidate for president in 1996.

I apologize for taking up so much space...
Lyle (and anyone else who does not want to register), these are, with the exception of the last link, multi-paged articles (# 1&2 are two pages, #3 is three pages)...clipped for some sense of brevity...FYI

[Lyle]

I apologize for taking up so much space...No, thanks very much, blackfox. After your initial post, I tried to see if I could view them through Google news but it seems to only let me view today's Washington Post stories (not the ones from a few days back) without doing the registration thing.

[zimv20]

after all bremer's changes, i suppose the "free" is gone from "free elections"

[IJ Reilly]

Hey, they're ahead of schedule... doesn't that mean that everything is going just great?

[Sayhey]

Here's Juan Cole's (http://www.juancole.com/) take on today's events.


Bremer Flees Iraq Two Days Early

Paul Bremer suddenly left Iraq on Monday, having "transferred sovereignty" to the caretaker Iraqi government two days early.

It is hard to interpret this move as anything but a precipitous flight. It is just speculation on my part, but I suspect that the Americans must have developed intelligence that there might be a major strike on the Coalition Provisional Headquarters on Wednesday if a formal ceremony were held to mark a transfer of sovereignty. Since the US military is so weak in Iraq and appears to have poor intelligence on the guerrilla insurgency, the Bush administration could not take the chance that a major bombing or other attack would mar the ceremony.

The surprise move will throw off all the major news organizations, which were planning intensive coverage of the ceremonies originally planned for Wednesday.

This entire exercise is a publicity stunt and has almost no substance to it. Gwen Ifill said on US television on Sunday that she had talked to Condaleeza Rice, and that her hope was that when something went wrong in Iraq, the journalists would now grill Allawi about it rather than the Bush administration. (Or words to that effect). Ifill seems to me to have given away the whole Bush show. That's what this whole thing is about. It is Public Relations and manipulation of journalists. Let's see if they fall for it.

Allawi is not popular and was not elected by anyone in Iraq. The Kurds were sullen today. There were no public celebrations in Baghdad. When people in the Arab world are really happy, there is celebratory fire. They are willing to give Allawi a chance, but that is different from wholehearted support....

[3rdpath]

sounds more like an elaborate game of hot potato than a transfer of sovereignty...








now playing: last plane out / toy matinee

[Voltron]

sounds more like an elaborate game of hot potato than a transfer of sovereignty...


Probably, for the short run anyhow. Predictions on tv now about how terrorism is going to go up between now and Iraqi's election 7 months from now. People are probably going to post about how much worse it is. Thing is it is going to get worse in an attempt to stop the election process from happening.

[mactastic]

This is nothing but kowtowing to terrorists and giving in to the pressure they applied to Bush and the coalition.

How can this be interpreted as anything other than allowing the terrorists to dictate the ground rules? Are we seriously afraid of what might happen if we follow the schedule WE set out?

And can you imagine the scream of 'cowardice' from the right if a President Kerry had done something like this?

[Voltron]

This is nothing but kowtowing to terrorists and giving in to the pressure they applied to Bush and the coalition.

How can this be interpreted as anything other than allowing the terrorists to dictate the ground rules? Are we seriously afraid of what might happen if we follow the schedule WE set out?

And can you imagine the scream of 'cowardice' from the right if a President Kerry had done something like this?
What, switching over power 3 days early? I thought it was the UN's idea to do it on the 30th. I believe it was smart strategy to do it 3 days early so as to prevent the terrorist from interfering with the change over.

The terrorists aren't pleased they are going to get worse not better, switch over isn't going to stop them.

[mactastic]

I thought it was the UN's idea to do it on the 30th.

No, that was all GWB's call. And now he can't even stick it out until the day he said he would. Cutting and running is what it looks like to terrorists.

[Voltron]

No, that was all GWB's call. And now he can't even stick it out until the day he said he would. Cutting and running is what it looks like to terrorists.
Were still there *shrug*

[mactastic]

Were still there *shrug*

Haha, you *shrug* now, but back then you were on the side that ridiculed me and others who said we'd still be there 130,000 strong 15 months hence back before this war started. Now you *shrug* as if that never happened. :mad:

[Voltron]

Haha, you *shrug* now, but back then you were on the side that ridiculed me and others who said we'd still be there 130,000 strong 15 months hence back before this war started. Now you *shrug* as if that never happened. :mad:
Did it? I always figured we'd have bases there, I personally figured that we'd close our European bases and open up a slew of Middle East bases.

[jefhatfield]

This is nothing but kowtowing to terrorists and giving in to the pressure they applied to Bush and the coalition.

How can this be interpreted as anything other than allowing the terrorists to dictate the ground rules? Are we seriously afraid of what might happen if we follow the schedule WE set out?

And can you imagine the scream of 'cowardice' from the right if a President Kerry had done something like this?

i think the handover today was a good way to save lives...on both sides

i am glad that iraq is back in their hands even though i know us troops will be involved there for some time to come

i don't give w any brownie points for the handover since it was the shrub and his administration who put us in iraq in the first place...as this has dragged on, more and more people have ditched their support for the president and what supporters he has have toned down their enthusiasm a lot

some months back, i thought bush would definitely win in november but i think the war turning south and the sluggish economy has made this handover look like a weak political move of w to make him look good

...but at this point, nothing can make w look good and if he gets a second term, it will be by the skin of his teeth

sure, he barely got in four years ago but his supporters were on a mission and they were gung ho...where are they now? no matter what bush does in the next four years, assuming he gets a second term, he won't go down in history as an effective president like clinton and reagan were...who, whether you agree with them or not, got a lot done in their first terms and were generally praised by the majority of the country

[Sayhey]

i think the handover today was a good way to save lives...on both sides

i am glad that iraq is back in their hands even though i know us troops will be involved there for some time to come...

I agree jef, but it can't inspire confidence that we aren't able to hold a transfer ceremony in the open for all the Iraqi people to see. A necessary change, but not much of a confidence builder.

[jefhatfield]

I agree jef, but it can't inspire confidence that we aren't able to hold a transfer ceremony in the open for all the Iraqi people to see. A necessary change, but not much of a confidence builder.

if bush gives us the impression that the whole occupation is truly over, then he will gain a few points in the polls

when someone brings up this unpopular war a few months from now, no one will want to hear about it since it may be considered old news by then

that will hopefully make us look the economy and how it has been with the inevitable question, "are you better off today than four years ago?"

i am confident most will say "no" and this will hurt bush and hopefully get him out of office...i don't think he is the worst president ever since i am reading "all the president's men" right now about the watergate scandal

but at least nixon got stuff done ;)

[tristan]

In a political context, this is part of the republican strategy to take away Kerry's issues.

Issue #1 The economy: Obviously getting beter. Even though the US is negative for job creation, trends for the last few months are good, and if it continues, it'll be hard for the democrats to hit the Republicans on the economy. If a lower defecit is projected for next year, that will help the elephants too.

Issue #2 Iraq: This is part of a path towards Bush reducing military head count in Iraq before the Nov election. I wouldn't be surprised if you see less than 100k troops in Iraq by November. That way if Kerry says "US troops out of Iraq", Bush can say "well, half of them have already left." Also Kerry says "UN support", Bush can say "we already have UN and NATO support now."

Issue #3 Health Care: Prescription drug benefit signed a while back.

So what are Kerry's issues going forward? I'd vote Kerry because I think he'd do better on health care and education, and I think that's what he should be highlighting. But will he get that message out and will it resonate with most people if they think the country is improving anyway?

[screener]

y reasons).As Paul Bremer was sneaking out, Ahmad Chalabi, the swindler who has bilked America out of millions, was sneaking in. He was smiling from ear to ear at the swearing-in ceremony for the new prime minister, Iyad Allawi (a ceremony so secretive that coalition officials confiscated reporters' cellphones to enforce an embargo on the news for security reasons).

http://nytimes.com/2004/07/01/opinion/01DOWD.html

So what was Chalabi doing there?

[jefhatfield]

In a political context, this is part of the republican strategy to take away Kerry's issues.

Issue #1 The economy: Obviously getting beter. Even though the US is negative for job creation, trends for the last few months are good, and if it continues, it'll be hard for the democrats to hit the Republicans on the economy. If a lower defecit is projected for next year, that will help the elephants too.



i remember talking to my republican friend, who remains conservative, but won't vote for bush again

"so the economy is good, or getting there finally...about time!...so let's say bush has one good year? *this was back in november, 03*

how will that make up for nearly three shi##y years that we had under his watch?"

no matter what happens between july and november this year, even great job creation, there is no way bush can say "yup, i did our economy proud" ;)

[zimv20]

"so the economy is good, or getting there finally...about time!...so let's say bush has one good year? *this was back in november, 03*

and that's why i posed the question about which of his economic policies, if any, helped the economy. i think it's a perfectly legitimate position to hold that, despite his policies, the economic engine of america was able to burst through.

e.g. after 3 years of sluggishness, businesses just simply broke down and needed to buy some stuff. plus, after so much downsizing, a certain efficiency was reached.