HughJeffin Byrd Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 Message -- Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to the Stabilization of Iraq TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent the enclosed notice to the Federal Register for publication continuing the national emergency with respect to the stabilization of Iraq. This notice states that the national emergency with respect to the stabilization of Iraq declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, as modified in scope and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13438 of July 17, 2007, is to continue in effect beyond May 22, 2012. Obstacles to the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Accordingly, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency with respect to this threat and maintain in force the measures taken to deal with that national emergency. Recognizing positive developments in Iraq, my Administration will continue to evaluate Iraq's progress in resolving outstanding debts and claims arising from actions of the previous regime, so that I may determine whether to further continue the prohibitions contained in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, as amended by Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004, on any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq, the accounts, assets, and property held by the Central Bank of Iraq, and Iraqi petroleum-related products, which are in addition to the sovereign immunity accorded Iraq under otherwise applicable law. BARACK OBAMA http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/18/message-continuation-national-emergency-respect-stabilization-iraq 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crow Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 he finally did something right!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMaker Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 YES! CONTINUE, CONTINUE! Positive developments, making PROGRESS, resolving outstanding debts & claims etc.... GO IRAQ! GO RV! thanks for sharing. he finally did something right!! AMEN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo9678 Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 Ummm.... guys.... Maybe it's just me but continuing the EO means that Iraq isn't ready to do things on their own and still need our help. That's not necessarily a good thing. What I got from this is that Iraq is not ready to be fully sovereign and still needs external protections. I mean somebody clue me in to where the extension of this order is a good thing... Not trying to start a fight, just want to get some clarity on another point of view... Thanks. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 Sorry to bust ya, alls bubble here but as long as the US has to protect Iraq it will never be a totaly sovern country and Chapter 7 lifting becomes a wash.Think The Big O just broke it off in our asses/. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegente Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) Ummm.... guys.... Maybe it's just me but continuing the EO means that Iraq isn't ready to do things on their own and still need our help. That's not necessarily a good thing. What I got from this is that Iraq is not ready to be fully sovereign and still needs external protections. I mean somebody clue me in to where the extension of this order is a good thing... Not trying to start a fight, just want to get some clarity on another point of view... Thanks. Your assessment is probably correct, Iraq is still lagging behind on many issues, and probably will be for at least another 6 months to a year. I hope I'm wrong, but with Iraq's track record, I doubt it. Edited May 18, 2012 by thegente 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWitte Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 I think maybe the US is gonna keep a foot in the door just in case Malaki gets his dictatorship, which hopefully we will NEVER tolerate. Just my view. Or maybe the more we stay involved the faster we push Iraq forward. HCL, Chapter 7, RV 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportfisher Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 We're talking about Obama here, nothing good can come from this. 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegente Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 We're talking about Obama here, nothing good can come from this. I have no faith in Obama either, but these are Executive Orders put in place when Bush was President...Obama's just extending the EO's to keep Iraq under our bootheels until they can actually get their act together....basically the US can march right back in there if things get too far outta hand I believe. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caper Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 This excectutive order is further proof that RV is not happening anytime soon !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cris Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 Does this have anything to with protecting the DFI ( development fund ) and troops......at the Embassy......and .......elsewhere in the country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skitealwedrop Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 This thread appears to be a duplicate of Yota's prior post. The Mod's should merge them. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddiemac Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 This sounds like more delay to me, odd because I got a email from Adam Today saying there maybe good news? I had read it fast at work but I believe that was the jist of it. Oh well time will tell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GinaG Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 Thats about right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eLemonator Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 it sounds to me like, Obama is trying to keep some form of ability to send troops in on a moments notice. IMHO I would suspect that is due to the political tension around Maliki right now. lets not forget it is an election year and if the lid blows in Iraq, and they have a civil war, the american troops the were injured and those the died would then have died in vein! going into an election he cannot take that chance. it was only renewed for 90 days! and if they are released from chapter 7 he could cancel that E.O.! IMO this is a good thing, it shows that the US is not going to let them go back to war! which a War would certainly halt the RV! GO RV/RI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts