Archive for the ‘Iraq’ Category

Twenty years on, reflection and regret on 2002 Iraq war vote – Escanaba Daily Press

WASHINGTON (AP) Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow was sitting in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfelds conference room at the Pentagon, listening to him make the case that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

At some point in the presentation one of many lawmaker briefings by President George W. Bushs administration ahead of the October 2002 votes to authorize force in Iraq military leaders showed an image of trucks in the country that they believed could be carrying weapons materials. But the case sounded thin, and Stabenow, then just a freshman senator, noticed the date on the photo was months old.

There was not enough information to persuade me that they in fact had any connection with what happened on Sept. 11, or that there was justification to attack, Stabenow said in a recent interview, referring to the 2001 attacks that were one part of the Bush administrations underlying argument for the Iraq invasion.

I really thought about the young men and women that we would be sending into battle, she said. I have a son and a daughter would I vote to send them to war based on this evidence? In the end the answer for me was no.

As with many of her colleagues, Stabenows nay vote in the early morning hours of Oct. 11, 2002, didnt come without political risk. The Bush administration and many of the Democrats swing-state constituents strongly believed that the United States should go to war in Iraq, and lawmakers knew that the House and Senate votes on whether to authorize force would be hugely consequential.

Indeed, the bipartisan votes in the House and Senate that month were a grave moment in American history that would reverberate for decades the Bush administrations central allegations of weapons programs eventually proved baseless, the Middle East was permanently altered and nearly 5,000 U.S. troops were killed in the war. Iraqi deaths are estimated in the hundreds of thousands.

Only now, 20 years after the Iraq invasion in March 2003, is Congress seriously considering walking it back, with a Senate vote expected this week to repeal the 2002 and 1991 authorizations of force against Iraq. Bipartisan supporters say the repeal is years overdue, with Saddams regime long gone and Iraq now a strategic partner of the United States.

For senators who cast votes two decades ago, it is a full-circle moment that prompts a mixture of sadness, regret and reflection. Many consider it the hardest vote they ever took.

The vote was premised on the biggest lie ever told in American history, said Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, then a House member who voted in favor of the war authorization. Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said that all of us that voted for it probably are slow to admit that the weapons of mass destruction did not exist. But he defends the vote based on what they knew then. There was reason to be fearful of Saddam and what he could have done if he did have the weapons, Grassley said.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, then a House member who was running for the Senate, says the war will have been worth it if Iraq succeeds in becoming a democracy.

What can you say 20 years later? Graham said this past week, reflecting on his own vote in favor. Intelligence was faulty.

Another yes vote on the Senate floor that night was New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, now Senate majority leader. With the vote coming a year after Sept. 11 devastated his hometown, he says he believed then that the president deserved the benefit of the doubt when a nation is under attack.

Of course, with the luxury of hindsight, its clear that the president bungled the war from start to finish and should not have ever been given that benefit, Schumer said in a statement. Now, with the war firmly behind us, were one step closer to putting the war powers back where they belong in the hands of Congress.

Twenty years later, support has flipped. Then, only 28 senators voted against the authorization. All but one were Democrats. Today, roughly the same number of senators are voting against nullifying the 2002 and 1991 measures, arguing that repeal could project weakness to U.S. enemies and hamper future operations. But all of the opponents are Republicans.

Among those Republicans voting in favor of repeal is Grassley. He said withdrawing the war authorization would prevent those powers from being misinterpreted and abused in the future.

In 2002, the Bush administration worked aggressively to drum up support for invading Iraq by promoting what turned out to be false intelligence claims about Saddams weapons of mass destruction. Lawmakers attended briefing after briefing with military leaders and White House officials, in groups and in one-on-one conversations, as the administration applied political pressure on Democrats, in particular.

In the end, the vote was strongly bipartisan, with Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., and others backing Bushs request.

Joe Biden also voted in favor as a senator from Delaware, and now supports repealing it as president.

Other senior Democrats urged opposition. In one of many speeches on the Senate floor that invoked the countrys history, the late Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., urged his colleagues to visit the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the National Mall, where nearly every day you will find someone at that wall weeping for a loved one, a father, a son, a brother, a friend, whose name is on that wall.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., issued a similar warning during the floor debate, saying he believed that anxiety and fear may be driving sentiment for an Iraq invasion. I caution and beg my colleagues to think twice about that, Durbin said, adding that America has faced periods of fear in its past.

Now the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Durbin recalled on the Senate floor earlier this month his vote against the resolution amid a fearsome national debate over whether the U.S. should invade Iraq. The threat of weapons of mass destruction was beaten into our heads day after day, Durbin said. But many of us were skeptical.

I look back on it, as I am sure others do, as one of the most important votes that I ever cast, Durbin said.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., agrees that at the time, I remember thinking this is the most serious thing I can ever do.

She says the environment was charged with an emotional pressure in the public and in the media that the U.S. needed to show Iraq and the world that it was tough. She voted against the resolution after deciding there was not enough evidence to support the Bush administrations argument, and after talking to many of her constituents at home who opposed the idea of an Iraq invasion.

For many lawmakers, the political pressure was intense. Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, then a House member and now the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, says he was excoriated at home for his no vote, after the Sept. 11 attacks had killed so many from his state. He made the right decision, he says, but it was fraught with political challenges.

Similarly, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., recalls that the idea of invading Iraq was popular at home, and the states other senator, Republican Gordon Smith, was supporting it, as were Daschle and other influential Democrats. But he was a new member of the intelligence committee, with regular access to closed-door briefings by administration officials. He wasnt convinced by their arguments, and voted no.

It was really a dramatic moment in American history, Wyden says. You wish you could just unravel it and have another chance.

Senate Armed Services Chairman Jack Reed, D-R.I., then a freshman senator who also voted against the resolution, says the war made no sense strategically and took the countrys focus off the troops waging war in Afghanistan. Just absolutely bad strategy, he says, that also contributed to the buildup of other powerful countries like China and Russia.

For those who voted for the invasion, the reflection can be more difficult.

Hillary Clinton, a Democratic senator from New York at the time, was forced to defend her vote as she ran for president twice, and eventually called it a mistake and her greatest regret. Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin solemnly told an Iowa PBS station several years ago that his vote in the Senate to authorize force in Iraq was the worst vote I ever cast in my life.

Markey says I regret relying upon Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney, along with other administration officials. It was a mistake to rely upon the Bush administration for telling the truth, Markey said in a brief interview last week.

Graham says he spoke to Bush last week on an unrelated matter, but that they also discussed the wars anniversary.

I told him, Mr. President, Iraq has not retreated from democracy,' Graham said. It has been imperfect. But if at the end of the day, Saddam Hussein is eliminated and a democracy takes his place that can work with the United States, that is worth it. It turned out to be in Americas interest.'

Bushs reply was uncertain.

He said he believes that history will judge whether or not Iraq can maintain its path to democracy, Graham said.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Continue reading here:
Twenty years on, reflection and regret on 2002 Iraq war vote - Escanaba Daily Press

Iraq amends its electoral legislation, alarming the opposition – Iraqi News

Baghdad Iraqs parliament voted Monday to restore electoral laws that were scrapped after 2019 anti-government demonstrations, sparking anger from independent lawmakers who see it benefitting larger parties.

The law, which parliament said in a statement was adopted without detailing the votes, revives the electoral law of 2018 and sweeps away one of the gains of the mass protest movement which shook Iraq.

After the protests, a new system favoured the emergence of independent candidates, with some 70 independents winning seats in the 329-member parliament in the last legislative elections in 2021.

Parliament is dominated by the Coordination Framework, an alliance of powerful pro-Iran Shiite factions, from whose ranks Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani emerged.

The new law removes 83 electoral districts and creates 18 seats, one for each of Iraqs provinces.

This makes it easier for top party politicians to win seats, analyst Sajad Jiyad said on Twitter.

Conversely, it will make it harder for candidates in smaller parties and independents to compete because they will be running at a provincial rather than a local level, he added.

During the debate, which ran from Sunday into the early hours of Monday, several angry independent lawmakers were expelled from the debating chamber, according to videos they filmed themselves.

The law also replaces a first past the post system with proportional representation.

Overall, the changes will benefit the larger parties and make it possible for their candidates who didnt get enough votes initially to win seats, Jiyad added.

Independent candidates will no longer have any hope of obtaining representation in parliament, said Alaa Al Rikabi, an independent lawmaker. They will be crushed.

But Coordination Framework lawmaker Bahaa Al-Dine Nouri welcomed the change, arguing that it will distribute the seats according to the size of the parties.

Nouri said this will lead to the formation of a government within the time limits set by the constitution to avoid the endless stand-offs that followed the 2021 election.

The new law will apply to the next legislative elections, the date of which has not yet been set.

It will also apply to provincial elections slated for November 6, to be held in 15 of the 18 Iraqi provinces, excluding the three provinces in the autonomous Kurdistan region of northern Iraq.

In Iraqi Kurdistan, regional elections will take place on November 18 under a separate electoral system.

See the article here:
Iraq amends its electoral legislation, alarming the opposition - Iraqi News

Oil steady after years biggest rally as Iraq spat curbs exports – BNN Bloomberg

Oil steadied after its biggest rally of the year as a disagreement between Iraq and its Kurdish region curtailed exports, while fears over a fallout from the banking crisis receded.

West Texas Intermediate futures traded near US$73 a barrel after jumping more than 5 per cent on Monday in the steepest surge since October. Alegal disputebetween Iraq, its semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan and Turkey has halted around 400,000 barrels a day of flows from Ceyhan port.

The Iraq dispute has given support to prices, but its ultimately helped push a ball that was already rolling, said Ole Sloth Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank. Sentiment in the market has been improving as the banking crisis fades.

Oil nonetheless remains on track for a fifth monthly decline amid concerns over a potential US recession and resilient Russian energy flows. Most market watchers are still betting that Chinas recovery will accelerate and boost prices later this year as demand rebounds.

Investors will be watching comments from several US Federal Reserve officials, as well as a key measure of US inflation due this week, for clues on the path forward for monetary policy. Interest-rate hikes have added to bearish sentiment.

The OPEC+ coalition is showing no signs of adjusting oil productionwhen it meets next week, staying the course amid turbulence in financial markets, delegates said. The Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee, which has the power to call an emergency meeting, convenes Monday.

Read the original post:
Oil steady after years biggest rally as Iraq spat curbs exports - BNN Bloomberg

Bush did what Putins doing so why is he getting away? – Al Jazeera English

It was disgracefully dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom by the invading United States military forces, but for millions of Iraqis around the world, it was anything but.

Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the start of what then-United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan described more appropriately as an illegal war on Iraq by the US and its allies.

What we did learn from the war is the abhorrent hypocrisy of labels in conflicts when viewed through a Western lens. This war has, as an Iraqi, plagued my thoughts daily since March 2003. It has left hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, with millions of others displaced and their lives ruined.

Images of Baghdads night sky lit up by flames, as bombs were indiscriminately dropped more regularly than a ticking clock on the City of Peace, are forever etched in our memories. For weeks, nights turned to day, as Iraqis would pray to make it to the morning alive.

The years that followed could hardly be forgotten, either. From an oppressive occupation to sectarian governance, the Iraq war has continued to ruin the lives of millions. My own family is now scattered around the world, from Canada to Australia, as a result of the brutal invasion.

Sadly, over the last 20 years, we have failed to see any accountability for the plethora of lies and false arguments by both former US President George W Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blairs governments that led to an era-defining conflict.

In contrast, it took current US President Joe Biden mere weeks to decry his Russian counterpart as a war criminal after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Of course, Vladimir Putins war on Ukraine is brutal and illegal. But what about Bidens own warmongering? Let me remind you: Bidenchampioned a war in Iraq yearsbefore Bush even took office.

Within a mere few days of US military action in Iraq,more than 15,000 Iraqis losttheir lives in violent conflict as a result of Washingtons shock and awe tactic to overwhelm the country with its military might. To put this into context, and although one innocent life lost is one too many, the total death toll in Ukraine of non-combatantssince the war began a year ago is an estimated 8,000 civilians.

Yet while Russia has been hit by sanctions by multiple Western nations and their allies, and the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant against Putin, we saw none of this with the US, United Kingdom, Bush and Blair.

Theres little difference even between the language used by Bush and Putin before their respective wars. Ahead of the Iraq invasion, Bush used terms like freedom, liberation and war on terror. Putin similarly claimed he wasliberatingUkraine andcurbing terrorismin the region.

Such are the parallels that in a moment of bizarre irony, Bush while attempting to denounce Putins invasion last year accidentally scoldedhis own actions, criticising in a speech the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq.

The reality is that both leaders used false narratives to build public support for wars that have redefined their respective regions. Much like Bushs claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Putin suggested Ukraine has ambitions to usechemical weapons.

It was Bush, however, who did use incendiary weapons in Iraq in the form ofwhite phosphorus in Fallujah, with children to this day sufferingbirth defectsas a consequence of the lasting effects of the chemical.Yet far from facing accountability, Bush has been allowed to redefine his own narrative asan immigrant-loving artist.

If he is not seeing out his days of retirement at his ranch in Texas, he can be founddancing with Ellen DeGeneres on prime-time television. Former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, both architects of the Iraq war, passed away without facing justice. Bush must be held to account before it is too late.

Conveniently, Bush withdrew the US from the International Criminal Court inthe year before the Iraq invasion, making it near to impossible to hold US leaders or military officials to account for alleged war crimes. When the ICCs top prosecutor wanted to investigate alleged war crimes by US soldiers in Afghanistan in 2020, Washington imposed sanctions on her much like Putins Russia has opened a case against the current ICC prosecutor.

Against this backdrop, the US making allegations of war crimes against Putin seems hypocritical.At least800,000 Iraqis were killedas a consequence of Bushsalleged divinely inspiredinvasion of Iraq.

Those who dared oppose the eight-year US occupation in Iraq were labelled as insurgents. Many were infamously tortured and sexually abused by US troops at the now notorious Abu Ghraib prison.

Similar resistance movements in Ukraine, however, arebranded as heroic for standing up to Russian occupation. Ukrainians have been celebrated for making homemade Molotov cocktails as defence weapons, but when similar acts of resistance happened in Iraq or Palestine, the label terrorist was used. This racist double standard has been evident throughout the past year.

The touching acts of global solidarity with Ukraine from Premier League football matches raising Ukrainian flags to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy giving a speech at the Golden Globes this year were never on display for the victims of the brutal Iraq war.

If the absence of support and empathy was not bad enough, the war on Ukraine unsheathed a disregard for the lives of people in the Global South suffering from deadly conflicts often plotted in Western capitals. This isnt a place, with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan, that has seen conflict raging for decades, said Charlie DAgata, a senior CBS News correspondent, reporting from Kyiv, Ukraine.You know, this is a relatively civilised, relatively European I have to choose those words carefully, too city where you wouldnt expect that or hope that its going to happen.

The reason Iraq has witnessed decades worth of war is directly linked to Bushs 2003 decision to invade a country that had already been ravaged by years of brutal sanctions.The death of innocent Iraqis matters just as much as the deaths of innocent Ukrainians. Just as Ukrainians deserve life and solidarity, so too do Iraqis.

Just as we should want Putin to be tried for his crimes, we should be demanding that Bush be charged for his. We cannot wait another 20 years.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeeras editorial stance.

Read more from the original source:
Bush did what Putins doing so why is he getting away? - Al Jazeera English

Iraq’s oil revenues in February exceed $7 billion – Iraqi News

Baghdad (IraqiNews.com) The Iraqi Ministry of Oil announced on Sunday that oil export revenues for February exceeded seven billion USD, according to the Oil Ministry statement cited by the Iraqi news Agency (INA).

According to the final statistics issued by the State Organization for Marketing of Oil (SOMO), the total exports of crude oil during February exceeded 92.25 million barrels with revenues exceeding 7.62 billion USD, the statement mentioned.

The statement indicated that the total quantities of crude oil exported during February from oil fields in central and southern Iraq were more than 89.14 million barrels, while the quantities exported from oil fields in Kirkuk through the port of Ceyhan were more than 2.83 million barrels.

The average price per barrel was nearly 76.6 USD, the statement elaborated.

Iraqi oil exports were loaded by 35 international companies from ports on the Arabian Gulf and through the Turkish port of Ceyhan.

Last month, Iraq exported more than 101.24 million barrels with revenues exceeding 7.66 billion USD.

The total exports of crude oil during December exceeded 103.28 million barrels with revenues exceeding 7.7 billion USD, according to final statistics issued by SOMO.

The Iraqi Ministry of Oil announced earlier that oil export revenues for November exceeded eight billion USD, with an average price exceeding 82.41 USD per barrel, while revenues of oil exports during October were more than nine billion USD.

See the original post here:
Iraq's oil revenues in February exceed $7 billion - Iraqi News